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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

advert for a nonnotable software outsourcing sweatshop: "multinational computer technology corporation that provides software and services that make technology work for both enterprises and consumers" Mukadderat (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a $100 million company listed on the NASDAQ exchange. They have a profile at Hoover's which seems to fall under the requirement for publicly traded corporations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hoover profile has no indication as to why and how the company is notable. The requirenmet is rather misguided. There profiles currently grew to lest even penny-worth public companies: that's their bread and butter. Also, it does not seem that the profile was written by an independent analyst, but rather self-advert (unsigned): from hoover: SupportSoft wants to be a pillar of support. The company's Web-based support software proactively identifies and repairs hardware and software problems Oh, really? . Mukadderat (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong delete See Wikipedia:ANB#Reporting_Page:_SupportSoft_as_an_high_threat_illegal_virus_trap. Zazaban (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Seems like an overreaction there. The software appears to be some kind of help desk client that his firewall is mistakenly blocking. Nakon 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, this complaint is either overreaction or competitor's plot. Mukadderat (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced accusations. Researched the issue on my own and found the program & process used in a number of legit processes: [1]. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, Keep Zazaban (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Strong Keep, I've found four news links with one Google search for the keyword SupportSoft (not all on the same page). [2] [3] [4] [5] I don't think of them as any more notable than the next support company, as I've never heard of them up until now, but the few web links I've provided do assert some form of notability. ^blurred_peace ☮ 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's very hard to find actual reliable sources on this company as any that exist are drowing in a sea of press releases, but Blurpeace has demonstrated that at least a couple good ones do exist. Given the hundreds of thousands of google hits, I'm inclined to believe those aren't the only two (discounting the blog and the short "topics" piece from the nytimes). As to the claims on AN, I don't doubt the poster was acting in good faith, but we really have no idea what infected his computer. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would appear to be a notable tech service business: publicly traded, sourceable, and dealing directly with the public. I edited the article to remove a swatch of vague ad-speak and attempt to make it more concrete; probably more needs to be done along those lines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep, wth? --dab (𒁳) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there seems to be quite a few reliable external sources, even discounting the ocean of press releases. This seems to be notable under any incarnation of our guidelines on the topic, and the current iteration of the article is not promotional. Looking at their financials, they'll be deleting themselves soon enough. Kuru ^talk 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being publically traded on any stock exchange makes a company notable per the guidelines we have. Unless there are concerns about the sources confirming this that cannot be addressed, there is no valid reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As has been said, the company is worth $100mil+ and is publically traded in one of the world's largest stock markets. I'd say that makes it notable and worthy of an article. Ixistant (talk) 05:45, 3 May 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.