Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Technology Partners

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Technology Partners

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

Links this, this, this and this all suggest this has gotten coverage and one of the browser links here particularly mentions this was one of John Donovan's most famous companies and I was actually going to boldly redirect this to his article but I'm not sure if this can be better improved or what because the current version would certainly need it (this article actually began in June 2006 as a redirect to Novell where it is currently mentioned as well at John J. Donovan's own article). Pinging Mean as custard, Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary, Iliasbeshimov, Rich Farmbrough, Macrakis and Dreamyshade. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be merged into Novell or kept separate. I don't feel strongly either way, but the content should be kept. It certainly doesn't lack for trade press coverage. --Macrakis (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep companies that get bought up tend to loose their history if the articles are merged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm with the others on this. This is a keeper because it's been noted in reliable sources and therefore meets the notability standards for inclusion. Sorry I keep voting against you SwisterTwister, it just seems to be the luck of the draw tonight, it's not personal though. :-) Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this looks like a notable and complex enough topic that this article should be expanded instead of merged. In August some information was removed that actually looks verifiable, saying that it was spun off from Novell in 2008 and became part of a different company in 2014. Here's one potential source for that information and another. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable and have a place in history. Obvious ties to novell. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:32, 22 October 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.