Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servigistics

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. Just short of CSD:G11. Owen× ☎ 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Servigistics

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

Contested proposed deletion. Yet another software company that specializes in service lifecycle management solutions, whatever that means. Article is unambiguous advertising, written in "solution"-speak:

....founded the company with a service parts management solution which is the process of planning, forecasting and aligning service parts inventories, resource and processes to ensure optimal customer service levels with minimal risk and cost.
Servigistics' solutions have been tested and proven in some of the world’s most complex and demanding ERP environments.

Not sure what this has to do with erotic roleplaying.

The article currently is referenced to company profiles and press release announcements of routine deals. I also see no evidence of notability for this business in Google News results, only routine announcements of capitalization, contracts, non-notable trade awards, litigation reports, and press release announcements of products or acquisitions. Hint: nothing that contains the phrase the leading strategic service management solution provider is really an independent source. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Rule 34 notwithstanding, ERP in this context is enterprise resource planning. That said, this is pretty unarguably promotional, although I'm not sure it reaches the standard of CSD G11. Nor can I find any substantive sources that are both independent and offer significant, non-routine coverage. As noted by the nominator, the weasel words are especially resistant to sourcing. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable + advertising. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. I would be editing this article over the next few weeks so that it follows the wikipedia guideline, inputs are welcome from everyone since i am new to wikipedia. Please help me create this article from a neutral point of view. I have already added references to most of the page(preferably from 3rd party sites).Bond9044 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — BOnd9044 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. While I appreciate your work on the article, the references you've added seem to be press releases announcing routine deals, of the kind I was also able to find. Those aren't really independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 5 May 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.