Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoSoSys (2nd nomination)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoSoSys

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

Lacks notability. Negligible coverage by 3rd party sources. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are very unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the performance of the 1st AfD is pathetic in that it was closed as Keep with the mere showing of trivial sources and none of it was actually substantial or convincing, the current contents and sources are the same in that it's simply trivial company information such as its business plans, activities and other financial matters, none of it matters and none of it is significant. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are several significant, reliable, sources with wide coverage. That is what counts. Contribute23 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two of those sources are incidental coverage (mentioning the company while quoting its CEO); the third is essentially incidental (are they really notable for outsourcing development to Romania?). Only the cnet article can really be considered coverage of this company at all, and that's pretty tenuous as I see it. FalconK (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (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.