Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kognitio

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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kognitio

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

Appears to be a business-to-business IT consultant firm, although it's hard to tell with he way the article is written. Most of the sources do not meet the definition of independent, reliable sources. Does not seem to be a notable organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that this was previously deleted via the proposed deletion process, and that the creators of both versions are single purpose accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's uncertain from the article whether this is a software publisher or a consulting firm. Their chief product is the charmingly named "WX2", described as a full ANSI-SQL standards based analytical RDBMS that serves as a data warehouse appliance for data analytics. Oh, another one of those.

References are to petty trade third place awards from "SearchDataManagement.com", which I suspect has a limited audience outside the IT department; and to internal sites and tech investment analyst firms. None of that trade-only coverage confers notability. Google News finds mostly press release driven coverage of product rollouts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 18 August 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, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with previous posts plus: The whole article is basically a sales brochure. Once that is deleted, there is no content to worry about losing. Source based notability is marginal, and my guess is that it has already been maxed out by clever possible coi article writing. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer If this is deleted it will actually be the third time, once by CSD, once by PROD, and now once by AFD. I suggest it be WP:SALTed if deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Doesn't even appear to make an attempt at asserting notability. It exists, I guess, but that just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irreparable advertising and salt it like a particularly bland soup. Several Times (talk) 16:19, 25 August 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.