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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listeq[edit]

Listeq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve or Delete: The company may be notable but the article needs to show additional references from reputable and ideally international or national media. Current reference list is lacking of those from what I can see. If those can be added ASAP to demonstrate notability, I suggest we keep the article. If not, delete it. Coverage of notable software companies undoubtedly adds value to various wikipedia readers. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; a product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INSIGNIFICANCE and a Wikipedia search on the topic refutes your claim that the topic is insignificant. 

  Desktop Virtualization states, "Forrester Research identified in its report the Forrester Wave on Server-Hosted Virtual Desktops (VDI), Q3 2015 [3] the seven most significant software providers, being Citrix, Dell, LISTEQ, Microsoft, Nimboxx, Oracle, and VMware."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Analyst firms, including Forrester, do not have a reputation for fact checking. These reports are based on briefings by the companies in questions; the firms do not independently do their analysis. I would not consider "named as one of 7 providers in a niche market by an industry analyst firm" to be sufficient for establishing encyclopedia notability. Forrester in this case is not RS, and it may be a primary source; I believe that's how reports and monographs are treated, being self-published by Forrester in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your proof by assertion was that there were "no indications of...significance" for LISTEQ.  I've shown you two different definitions which were more than "indications" that the topic was significant.  For the second you've switched to talking about notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2016 (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.