Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Software Solutions

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Software Solutions

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

advert Corporate 05:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the suggestion to the 3 Jesse's: start over. The relatively large company, apparently doing interesting work, might deserve an article, but you can't use PR web as your cited publisher, and forget all the product listings and excruciating detail. KISS --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - A software company serving the government may be significant, Google News found one result here and here (this second link notes they have acquired a New Jersey-based company). Google News archives also provided results but the press releases seem to slightly (or nearly) outweigh the news articles. Two articles here and here list the company among the fastest growing and "among hottest in state" respectively and, in 2011, they also achieved Inc. magazine's "nation’s 5,000 fastest-growing private companies for a seventh time, one of just 59 firms to qualify for the ranking seven or more times" which may suggest significance. I have very mixed feelings with this and I'm seeing several federal contracts, my question is are these many federal contracts notable? Regarding this, I notice they haven't had much work for the past two years aside from this Air Force contract, this and this United Kingdom contract, all 2011, which I suppose is a reasonably busy amount but I would have expected more in a year. 2012 is nearly finished and I'm not aware of any work for this year. As you'll see from the results, it seems their primary customers are government agencies especially military such as the Air Force. This company certainly has potential and has some important customers thus I'm tied between weak delete and weak keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hopelessly promotional SwisterTwister asked me to comment; based on her sources, an article could be written: there seems to be enough information available that someone without COI could write a short article--they are a major specialized contractor. (I note that merely holding government contracts is enough for notability -- I doubt ST meant that -- I think the meaning was that it might be notability if the contracts are sufficiently important. However, this sort of puffery should be very strongly discouraged, and the best way to discourage it is by deleting, not by leaving it in the history and rewriting. (I would have said differently a year or two ago, but the flood of promotionalism requires a more drastic approach than I would have earlier supported, and I think most editors involved in this problem would agree with my current view) I think it might be copyvio as well, but I could not find it on their web site; I doubt nonetheless that they wrote it just for us. The only reason I do not immediately delete it is because I'd rather make this extended comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per blatant WP:PROMOTION AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unrelenting spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2012 (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.