Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALTEN Calsoft Labs

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. Sandstein 18:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALTEN Calsoft Labs

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

A very small part of the notable French company ALTEN. Its absurd for it to have an article of its own -- and there's no substantive content here worth saving DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also had encountered article recently and it's clear this part of an advertising campaign, especially since it only cares to list whatever a business listing and company-published information would say, not an actual encyclopedia, and there's nothing at all to suggest otherwise; everything about this is clear, and also including the different accounts involved with this, and as it is, we cannot take this locality's based publications as they are also going to be published and republished advertising, as has been shown by other AfDs. Therefore, the solutions for it is to delete when we find it and this is in fact the case. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to ALTEN, which presently has only a passing mention of this company that it now owns. This will serve to improve the merge target, making it more accurate and comprehensive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see a need to merge / redirect as the content is strictly corporate spam. Anyone looking for the company would find ALTEN, and that is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to ALTEN - and I mean VERY selective. While I agree with K.e.Coffman for the most part, there are some tidbits (about 3 1/2 of the sentences in the lead) which could be put into the parent company's article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a need to merge/redirect here. This is a minor subsidiary and the little information in the lead is sourced to this press release. This is not worth taking the trouble to merge/redirect what with all the attribution and leaving an undeletable redirect behind. Someone can just find a third party source and add the information on their own, without the need for a merge. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 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.