Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopra Group

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sopra Group

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009. Non-notable business, another IT Consulting and Services company. The only third party references currently in the article appear to be puff pieces from a business page occasioned by the announcement of a co-founder's retirement, and are not chiefly about the business. I don't find anything better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can a business with ten thousand employees not be notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, for starters, it may not have done anything to get it remembered in an encyclopedia. All I am finding are routine announcements and press releases and directory listings. Having many employees may get it past speedy deletion, but isn't notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~As nom stated, no WP:RS, so doesn't meet WP:GNG.~~FeatherPluma (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Under active reconsideration based on input below from Phil Bridger. Anticipate posting in a day or two. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, fails WP:CORP as a result of a lack of WP:RS. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep per Phil Bridger's inputs below, will reconsider. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if none of the nine refernces provided in this article are WP:RS? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the WP:ADVERT issue, a company's financial reports don't satisfy RS. There doesn't seem to be significant third-party coverage here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News archive search linked by the nomination procedure finds significant coverage in sources such as Le Figaro [1][2] and L'Express [3][4], as would be expected for any company quoted on the Paris Bourse. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references foiund by Phil listed above are sufficient. The Bourse is a major stock exchange, and as a first approximation, all companies listed there are likely to be notable. I agree the article is written in a routine promotional way, and needs some editing, but it does not require fundamental rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Truffle Capital's listing "Truffle 100 France" for 2013 has ranked the Sopra Group as the no. 2 software company in France, behind Dassault Systèmes (article in Boursier.com [5], see last paragraph). There seem to be plenty of third-party sources in French, and French Wikipedia's Business wikiproject has given the corresponding article a medium importance rating. (I think we may be engaging in some unintentional anglophone bias here. That few anglophone editors have heard of something doesn't automatically mean it's not notable.) The article does need to re-written in a non-promtional style and encorporate more material from third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naŋar (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (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.