Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROGNOZ

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROGNOZ

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

User:HelpUsStopSpam tagged this for notability in May 2018. It appears to be a case of undisclosed paid editing and corporate sockpuppetry, as the main contributors are User:Prognoz-marketing and User:Prognoz5. I agree with the former's assessment; this appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH per my attached source analysis.

SITH (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can find independent coverage with respect to the (dead) Gartner source. For example here: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2017/03/thomaswdinsmore-gartner-data-science-platforms.html they briefly mention Prognoz: "... inspired WTF reactions from folks in the know. Primarily a BI tool with some time-series and analytics functionality included, Prognoz lacks the predictive analytics capabilities that Gartner says are minimally required. It also appears to lack customers West of Moscow." apparently it was briefly in the Garnter MQ, as niche player, then disappeared again. They might be important in Russia, though. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking English coverage and this being en.wikipedia and per your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywalls (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my original tagging of the article. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2019 (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.