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 No consensus. If these new found references were added to the article as opposed to just being listed here it would go a long way towards avoiding another AfD in the future though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squiz[edit]

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage that would indicate this company passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference to The Australian is a routine announcement of a contract award, and seems to be based on information supplied by the business.[1] "Econsultancy: Digital Marketers United" hardly seems like a reliable source [2], and has limited circulation and interest in any case. This is more enterprise content management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, I don't see anything that suggests they actually pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Beside the article in The Australian, I found one in The Sydney Morning Herald, [3] [4] [5] ZDNet Australia, [6] Computerworld Australia. As this article explains, it's a significant player in the Australian market; not really a surprise if you consider that support and customization a significant factor for such software. Those articles indicate that the Aussie gov't uses it as 'whitebranded' software. Could not find product review though. Pcap ping 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reviews via Clusty (that I could find). Others searching for independent coverage may be helped by noticing that the company seems to have a number of sites, so try searching -site:squiz.net -site:squiz.com.au -site:squiz.co.uk -site:squiz.co.nz . I didn't turn up anything significant that's not in the article or already mentioned by PCap (white papers, further CMSWire articles about e.g. their white papers.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (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.