Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D2iQ, Inc.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D2iQ, Inc.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business, startup and funding news scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:SOAP as well. Catalyzzt (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on this coverage, I think the company passes W:NCORP:

The Information: In Cloud Software Wars, Mesosphere Bows to Kubernetes, In Pivot, Mesosphere Plans to Give Away Key Software
Forbes: Why Microsoft Could Reportedly Want To Buy Cloud Startup Mesosphere Even At $1 Billion, Will Mesosphere DC/OS Emerge As An Alternative to Kubernetes?
Standford Business: Mesosphere: Creating Lasting Value on Top of Open Source Software Mooonswimmer 12:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a case study there which usually means its notable. However the references are extremenly poor. The Forbes ref above is a contributor is an non-rs. The Information ref is speculation at best wouldn't pass WP:SIRS. The first block of references doesn't contain a single valid ref, that passes WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by speculation? It is relatively significant coverage about the company itself, The Information is a reliable, secondary source, and the authors and source appear to be independent from the subject.

You're right about the second Forbes article, but the first one I linked to was written by a Forbes senior editor. Mooonswimmer 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be senior editor but its based on The Information article. It is not reliable nor independent. The Information article is not reliable as its speculation. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the information here, every single bit of it is company generated. It is all PR. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have vague memories this company was covered by analysts (Gartner? Forrester?) but I'm unable to conduct a search due to limited access at present. Perhaps someone else can take a look? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything. Certainly they do seem to be liked by Gartner who reckon they follow recommedations in the container management using Kubernetes market segment and they are mentioned in aa Gartner report is which likely an ideal secondary source, but they're not in a Gartner magic quadrant report or any Forrester analyst reports. The references that comes close, is the case study in the article, which likely make combined with the Gartner coverage which is significant. In saying that Globaldata has a report on them. scope_creep^Talk 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator and other users. The company pretends to be notable but really good independent sources are not found. Javierel (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could evaluate the sources I've provided above. Mooonswimmer 16:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The sources presented need further evaluation anda. consensus to be established about whether they qualify for GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2023 (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.