Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model N, Inc.

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model N, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up corporate sites incidental mentions, and this brief article on stock valuation cnbc, but this isn't enough to establish notability. Possibly there is more coverage in pharma trade magazines, since the company appears to be fairly large and well-established in this specialized field.Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added sourcing meets WP:RS and notability is established. Changing my vote to 'Keep'.Dialectric (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a couple of independent references and added to content somewhat. Needs more work, but it's a start. I'm avoiding adding info from their SEC submissions or press releases at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisted to allow time for consideration of new sources added to the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakun.patra, Ifnord, and Dialectric, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 17:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYSE listing (on the main board, as here) is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said by DGG. But needs more sources and content to improve. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2014 (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.