- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pneuron ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP through signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The best source is this Forbes article. Other sourcing in the article is problematic with funding announcements (routine business news), or non-reliable sources. An analysis of the sources was imbedded in the article (which I removed as non article content) and is visible in this version. Whpq ( talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Delete per nom and per CSD G11. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Salt to prevent the article from being created for yet a third time. If the article is deleted and someone wants to recreate it, they should contact the closing admin and present additional impressive sources: perhaps significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But I doubt that any such sources exist. Cheers, —— Unforgettableid ( talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, "independent" coverage is all promotional in nature. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, I suppose. Gosh, this article has somehow worked its way into my top 10 most edited articles. My patience with helping drive-by, single-item-of-interest editors make something of this has been exhausted. I'll agree that the Forbes article seems to be the best source. Note that two articles link here.
Business-oriented architecture is a buzzword-filled orphan that was linked from the
May version of this article, which also seems promotional.
PricewaterhouseCoopers has a mention based on the Forbes article, in the history section:
In 2013, the company partnered with data integration firm Pneuron Corporation to help firms manage big data.
- Should this sentence be removed, as "undue weight" for the last 15 years of PwC history? Who knows how many other firms they've "partnered with" in the last 15 years? I'll need to get to work on something else to avoid staining my top ten with a red link ;-) Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete for all the reasons mentioned. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.