Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Duck Software

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. clean consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Duck Software

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

Little to no evidence of notability. They incorporated, raised some money, and made some products, and that's about it. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is spammy and terrible, but they're (unfortunately IMO) influential in open source discourse; perhaps there's nothing actually third-party about them (their main skill is positing themselves as pundits) but I'd be surprised - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what my searches and the current article showed were the same: Everything is mere PR and none of it actually forms substance, it all simply advertises what the company wants to say about itself, never actually that would at all actually be considered significant and non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this company has quite some following in the open source community. Contribute23 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be, but there aren't a whole lot of references to that effect. FalconK (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we need actual WP:RSes actually about the company, not press releases or churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. If anything, this article simply needs some improvement. Added a cite to this in the article just now: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2906862/application-development/black-ducks-new-mission-to-seek-out-insecure-open-source-code-in-the-enterprise.html Mbridge3000 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. AfD is not clean-up but neither are we obligated to keep articles on marginally notable subject that have likely been written by paid editors. Pls see WP:BOGOF. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this company was notable enough, I would expect the defenders of the article to have posted references to show it. What's there is little more than routine financing announcements. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - per Rwxrwxrwx, I'd have expected some convincing actual sources by now, rather than just philosophical handwaving from first principles (and funding rounds) - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 15 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.