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. Canley (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teragram Corporation[edit]

Teragram Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORP. KM World, a widely read trade journal, has named Teragram among the top 100 companies in Knowledge Management (see ref in article). Their software is used by major search engines and others. Yes, it is a small company, but WP:CORP explicitly says "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations". (By the way, I am not and never have been employed or otherwise engaged by Teragram, but I respect their work.) --Macrakis (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - This isn't a completely obscure company, but its visibility to the general public seems rather low. Being one of the "top 100 knowledge management companies" is kind of like being one of the "top 100 candlepin bowlers" - it's an obscure niche, as far as the public is concerned. I would be more impressed with articles on it in general business journals. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that "visibility to the general public" has ever been a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. We have villages with a population of 114, obscure and obsolete software which was never visible to the general public, and today isn't even visible to the vast majority of software practitioners, a recently established group of fungi, etc. etc. I don't think you'll find any of these in Business Week, National Geographic, or Scientific American. --Macrakis (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and they've also been named as one of the top 100 digital content companies. This is not candlepin bowling. The appropriate place to find notability for a company like this is in the relevant trade press. --Macrakis (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the sources are a bit thin but indicate notability, however some more sibstantial sources would be good. (tagged with refimprove) -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Whpq. The Transhumanist 08:15, 12 January 2008 (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.