Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consco

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. Courcelles 23:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consco

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

WP:NN company - sources are all press releases - unable to find significant mentions in RS. Tagged {{Notability}} since December 2009. (Most G-hits are typos for other companies) Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wp:notability looks borderline but likely. Has encyclopedic informative content. An apparently defunct company, content is probably not skewed by COI. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The past tense is the savior here, they are selling nothing and documenting something. Stub article on a software firm of the past. Sourcing needs improvement. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – was pondering on a relist, as well, as this may need more discussion. Searching for "Consco enterprises" may help, where I found this as a result. –MuZemike 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A software firm that was absorbed by CA in 1988 won't have the same easily googlable sourcing that more modern companies have. I found some significant coverage here in Computerworld. They also reported the formation of a Consco Users Group. Available only in a snippeet view, but this does cover them. It's also unclear how signficant this item is. But I think the sources found here for a pre-internet era company establish there is a high likely more sourcing is available offline. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Whpq; though the current pr-newswire sourcing is bad, there does appear to be significant coverage elsewhere if one digs enough. Dialectric (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (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.