Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PerceptIS

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. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PerceptIS

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but I don't feel comfortable with speedy deleting this, particularly as it has been an article for several years, apparently without challenge. Parts of it are rather promotional in tone, but that matters less with an article about a defunct company, and could be handled by cleanup in any case. The real issue here is notability. There seems not to be any sources clearly establishing the notability of this company, nor could I find any on a google search. DES ^(talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the company did receive coverage from Crain's Cleveland Business - Eureka Lott 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Various pieces of content promoting this former Helpdesk service provider have been removed in recent months. However, all that is left is an article about a defunct firm whose proposition involved providing outsourced secondary services supporting Peoplesoft, Blackboard etc., which is all very run-of-the-mill. The residual coverage from its lifespan, such as the "Crain's Cleveland Business" items, look like no more than routine announcements. I see no evidence of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 3 May 2017 (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.