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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigya[edit]

Gigya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

SwisterTwister blanked and redirected with the rationale "Not actually significant to satisfy WP:SPIP, WP:Not advocate also applies". (diff)

Stickee undid this saying "make an AfD instead of quasi-deletion through redirect". (diff)

I happen to agree with SwisterTwister and as a procedural point I'd like to remind Stickee that users are allowed to blank-and-redirect articles. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. a promotionalism with at best borderline notability. I would not make the redirect to SAP--I do not think, it necessary to make a redirect for every company they acquire. In practice disputes over this tend nowadays to come to AFD, which I think is a better place than the previous more obscure places. It was not wrong for ST to redirect; it was not wrong for Stickee to ask that this be brought here. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As DGG explains, the nomination here is a violation of deletion policy, which leads to violations of WP:PRESERVE in content disputes.  Perhaps a better answer is AfEP, Articles for editing policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meet WP:GNG For example [1]--Shrike (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to satisfy WP:CORP, with multiple third party refs in the article, and provided by Shrike. Stickee (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Worldwide company with sources to verify notability in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 13 November 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.