Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CGS Inc.

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CGS Inc.

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

Article has been variously tagged (and declined) for CSD and PROD. Creator blocked for advertising. Contains only primary sources. No other sources found except company profile listings. May be notable, but policy comes first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another outsourcing tech company advertising on Wikipedia. Their chief product apparently is acronyms: business selling computer software and programming services, including ERP, SCM, LMS, PLM, WMS, CRM, portal, E-commerce, application development, project services, e-learning, training, staffing, call center, and outsourcing services. Google News results will be misleading - there are a number of businesses using "CGS" - but nothing I saw suggested significant effects on history, techology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Smerdis, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough third-party mentions. I didn't get any third-party mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a company of this size would have garnered more media mentions but facts is facts and this company doesn't rise above the cosmic noise. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2011 (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.