Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Environments

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Environments

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

Non notable firm, promotional article The refs are either mentions or PR, the content with emphasis on listing every exec in the company & the firm's minor charities is promotional. FWIW, the page history shows a very puzzling way of starting an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, as creator of the page, but note that I was not the creator of the content; I just split it from the article on the generic topic intelligent environment, which had been tagged as spammy because of a couple of paragraphs about this company. Rather than simply remove it from that article, I thought it should be placed into on a separate page about the company, to be given a chance to show notability and verifiability. Well, it has now had that chance and failed. For the record, the original content was added by Daniellesheridan (an SPA), with a little added by Khooke before the split. It has recently been expanded by GraceDurie. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to the marketing/promotional content being removed (a lot of this content didn't use to be on this page?) but I would like to see the page retained for the historical facts: their involvement as a key player with OS/2, and their AM development tool which was widely used by a number of financial institutions for developing inhouse software in the mid 1990s. I guess this information is not particularly relevant today, but their involvement with OS/2 is interesting history. Khooke 19:24 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I did a search on HighBeam and there are quite a few articles (121), mostly from the late 1990s and early 2000s. I haven't had a chance to go through them to see what is there. I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2014 (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.