Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devbridge Group

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. A Train^talk 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devbridge Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not convinced of notability per GNG and NCORP, Most press is from "PR Newswire". Being 1,313th on a list of 5,000 is not so great an achievement.* Bulk of the article is awards, which gives it a very promo-y tone. *Okay, they slot ahead of 4k other companies/orgs, but being a 1000 down isn't enough L3X1 (distant write) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No real evidence of WP:NCORP. Sources in the article are either self-published content, unspectacular ranks in large lists, or awards with no known quality control and/or very narrow categories. My brief search found nothing further special, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. They apparently publish the software BetterCMS. Since the article's style is clearly one that only people in "marketing" use, presumably this is the best they were able to arrange. --Closeapple (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your page feedback. In response to the suggestions, I've added more sourcing to the page and have removed the awards section. Additional feedback is welcomed. --stevbro12 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bit confused whither article should be kept or deleted. My initiation google search found Fortune's ref and Forbes's ref. These references are reliable and have dept coverage. Someone check if a short article about Devbridge can be kept. These two notable references made me confused. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither sources meet the guidelines to establish notability as they are both considered WP:PRIMARY sources since both articles are either parroting company-provided data and information, or (e.g. the Forbes article) is an "advertorial" - that is, a "story" based entirely on interviews with company officials with is no evidence of independent research or critical analysis. A source must be "intellectually independent" and these sources fall well short. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources provided are WP:PRIMARY and fail to establish notability according to policy and guidelines. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, while the content is obvious "corp spam", with sections such as "Story" (??), "Office locations" and "Community involvement". Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unencyclopedic corporate spam that does not meet Wikipedia:NCORP. Citobun (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (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.