Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Software Enterprises (2nd nomination)

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Software Enterprises

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

A previous version of this article was deleted following AfD five days ago. Note also this comment that the revised article takes account of the AfD discussion. The most substantial source is the 2008 Simon Holloway article on the firm and its product set: I don't know whether that was under consideration in the previous AfD. I also added reference to an earlier shorter piece from Israel Business Today. Routine announcements can also be found (such as the dividend notice also referenced in the article). My own view is neutral, and while reticent about weighing down the AfD log with yet another entry, procedurally I feel that the proximity in time since the previous AfD should trigger reconsideration to either confirm or override its decision. Notifying previous participants @Maproom, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman, and Arthistorian1977:. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this time. Last time I was agree with deletion because the article was written as pure Press Release. Currently it needs some rework, but there is no look of advertisement. The company itself is kind of notable in Israel with quite enough information I can find in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm essentially only finding theirs and republished PR. SwisterTwister talk 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not trying very hard, then. A quick sample: [1],[2], [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I updated the article, adding refs from solid sources. Company is notable, although it has suffered ups and downs (like many companies). Data can added. I see no reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as per improved content and sources, and being WP:LISTED in Israel. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ke Coffman and Geewhiz, above. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some improvement, but the company is notable. It's on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TA-100 Index. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has not actually substantially changed regarding convincing substance, the listed links are still too bare and none of it comes close to insinuating independent notability. This alone cannot be based for keeping, thus "needs improvement [so can be kept]" is not a convincing statement if none of the alleged improvements to be made are not listed and assessed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 23 August 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.