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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IGG Software

[edit]

Non-notable, stale (has had cleanup template for 4+ months), only incoming links are from two non-notable "products" by IGG Software, already deleted once, created by user who has a likely conflict of interest (see their contribution history) tedder (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability meeting WP:CORP. JJL (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be sourced, but there is evidence of meeting WP:CORP ([1]) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those (not all) are simply press releases. tedder (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few reliable sources (not press releases). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did- and I think this is rescuable now. Thanks!

These seem like small, passing mentions--perhaps some of their (ex-)software is notable (e.g. iBank), but I'm unconvinced about the co. JJL (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think iBank is certainly notable per the references I added to this article. Perhaps the company is not as notable, but I think it still squeaks by. That being said, if you prefer to redirect this article to iBank and rewrite the material from that perspective, that's fine by me as well. I just redirected iBank to this article, but maybe it should have been the other way around. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found three notable sources that aren't press releases or reprints (the fourth is local and probably debatable under WP:CORP). If kept, it needs a ton of work -- reads like a company About Us page now. Company Infobox would seem appropriate since there are credible references to company size, founder, location, etc. chuuumus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (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.