Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandesic

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pandesic (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a stub, and based on WP:BEFORE the criteria is whether notabilty exists, not whether it's been demonstrated or proven in the article. Regarding "spam", there is no advertisement here as the company is defunct and offers no product or service -- therefore it logically cannot be spam. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubs are not auto-notable. Please read up on our policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that stubs are auto-deletable? Please cite the guidelines you are referring to. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, I am just saying that your arguments looks like saying stubs are auto-notable. And, for the record, they are not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Busse, Torsten (1997-08-06). "Intel, SAP form Pandesic e-commerce company". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  2. Bower, Joseph L.; Gilbert, Clark (1999-03-04). "Supplement (Field) Case Study. Pandesic: The Challenges of a New Business Venture (B)". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  3. Vance, Ashlee (2000-07-31). "Intel/SAP e-commerce venture collapses because of losses". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  4. Tran, Khanh T.L.; Boudette, Neal E. (2000-07-31). "Intel and SAP Will Close Pandesic In Another Blow to Net Retailing". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  5. Hall, Mark (2000-08-21). "Pandesic users still in dark: Shuttered e-commerce ASP mum on fate". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  6. Elgin, Ben (2000-07-28). "Can Pandesic Prosper?". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  7. Young, Eric (2000-07-31). "Pandesic to Shut Down". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  8. "Intel-SAP venture shutting down: Pandesic, a 3-year-old application service provider, is closing down because it couldn't figure out how to make itself profitable". CNET. 2002-01-02. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.
  9. Andrews, Paul (2001-05-24). "Failed Web Sites Live On, Gone but Not Forgotten". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-17.

     The article notes:

     Although this is a passing mention, it is worth noting that The New York Times]] considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars".
  10. Johnson, Mark W. (2013). Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business Press. p. 87. ISBN 1422157148. Retrieved 2015-11-17.

      The book notes:

  11. There are numerous sources about the subject on Google Books.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pandesic to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject has received significant coverage for its founding in 1997 and its closing in 2000. Its closing was covered by The Wall Street Journal.

  The New York Times considered Pandesic "once [among] the Web's shining stars".

  The subject was the subject of a case study by the Harvard Business Review in 1999.

  In 2013, the subject received significant coverage in Mark W. Johnson's 2013 book, "Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal", which was published by Harvard Business Press. That the subject has received significant coverage in a book more than a decade after it became defunct strongly establishes that it is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

  Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Cunard: This is a very thorough list. This reminds me a bit of Taligent. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Pandesic does have a couple parallels with Taligent. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Current state doesn't promote the company or its products more showing the failures. Cunard's research displays that Pandemic had significant notable coverage during the 1990s-2000s. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The biggest question here, isn't to keep the article, but "Why is this a stub?" --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:42, 3 December 2015 (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.