Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GXS (company)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GXS (company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — candidate for speedy deletion as advertising. Keep — concerns addressed by Novickas. Feezo (Talk) 10:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — edited 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
~~Speedy~~ delete, unambiguous advertising: an award-winning Managed Services Company providing Business-to-Business e-Commerce and data integration services around-the-world..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete. After Novickas's edits, it no longer reads quite as much like advertising. On the other hand, there's still nothing that indicates that this business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture; routine coverage of the fact that it's had acquisitions, been acquired, and been spun off does not make that case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find sufficient coverage in third party sources. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Keep after Novickas (see below) incorporated some 3rd party references.Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per Hoover's: "The company operates one of the world's largest business-to-business (B2B) e-commerce networks, connecting thousands of trading partners and managing more than a billion transactions each year." [1]. Coverage in Forbes [2], Washington Post, [3], etc. It is rather promotional. If no one else fixes it within a few days, I'll stub it down to a few sentences from those sources. Novickas (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Severely pruned and several 3rd party refs added. Novickas (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There appear to be enough secondary references to Global eXchange Services in Google to indicate notability.—RJH (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; satisfies WP:CORP. bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.