Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xchanging

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The result was nomination withdrawn. This business probably is has borderline notability, though more for its sports sponsorships than its actual operations; without that. The article now actually contains an English language explanation of their business, and I've edited or simply removed some of the more over the top POV-pushing or meaningless language from the article body. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xchanging

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

Contested proposed deletion. Regardless of whether this business is notable or not, this article is unambiguous advertising. It is also patent nonsense. We're told that this is a business processing company and that it operates a global production model, which is all very nice, but we're still left wondering what its 8000 employees do for a living. We'd be better off not pretending to have an article about this business than having this pretending to be an article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Keep Overall the article is not written like an advertisement. The company is listed publicly in London and is in the FTSE250, which convinces me that it meets WP:NOTE. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is not the real problem here; but even if this were a notable business, as it might be, it still leaves me mostly clueless as to what they make or do. And it is pretty blatant advertising. Text like this, vaguely promising vague advantage while carefully steering clear of the sort of representation that might constitute an offer binding in law, does not belong in an encyclopedia: It is a distinctive mode of engagement that can create new value for both client and service provider. The Enterprise Partnership model engenders a different set of motivations and behaviours than a simple fee-for-service arrangement, and is a unique approach to handling large and complex business processes that re-shifts the emphasis back towards the notion of partnership. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tried to back up wiki with referencing and links to articles. How else could the page be improved? Any suggestions welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.181.230 (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What it really needs is a more concrete, plain English explanation of what it does. I gather this is an outsourcing business to handle administrative tasks? Something more concrete than "business processing". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have added a section from the Xchanging Annual Report, which seems to explain how they make money! Too much Jargon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.181.230 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon, I can deal with. I've edited or simply removed some of the more floridly POV language to my own satisfaction. I am withdrawing this nomination for the time being. The issue I had with the first version was, not only the obvious advertising in it, but it didn't really give much of an opening to edit it, and any attempt to figure out what the business did on my part would have been guesswork. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 24 August 2010 (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.