Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataStax

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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax

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

Non-notable software firm. Of sources listed, only two are reliable, the rest are either self-published or wikis/open-editing sites. Extensive editing by COI editor (employee). The two sources are not sufficient to satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Google pulled up a lot of press releases, but not much press that I could find. GregJackP Boomer! 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The bylined article from InformationWeek plus the two bylined articles from The Register are decent discussions of the company. On the face of it, enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH: my only reservation is whether they are discussing the transient context of the firm as a start-up. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DataStax has been the subject of articles in computer periodicals (e.g. http://www.eweek.com/database/apache-cassandra-based-datastax-community-edition-1.2-launches/), (e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/datastax_enterprise_cassandra_2_0/). DataStax is considered to be one of four significant independent commercial players in the NoSQL market (see http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/01/15/4545144/research-and-markets-global-nosql.html) (or see 451group.com/information_management/2012/05/30/a-different-perspective-on-nosql-vendor-traction/), and the others -- Basho (company) and 10gen and Couchbase -- are in Wikipedia. The venture-capital funding ($38.7 million) is confirmed by Crunchbase www.crunchbase.com/company/datastax. The customer list can be at least partly confirmed by the customers themselves (e.g. for Netflix see http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html). The COI issue, if it exists, could be solved by removing a particular editor's contributions rather than deleting the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Crunchbase link cited is open to editing by anyone, and is not reliable (in the same manner as IMDb is not reliable). I don't have a problem withdrawing the nom if sufficient reliable sources are found, I didn't find them when I looked (or I missed them in all the fluff). GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any or all of the 182,000 hits that I find by googling for DataStax Venture Capital could be for false fronts, copiers of press releases, or user-editable places. Perhaps one alternative is to look up the venture-capital companies' web sites and see whether they mention DataStax, e.g. http://lsvp.com/company/datastax/ or http://www.meritechcapital.com/investments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article today to (I hope) take care of the worst issues.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Good source coverage of DataStax as subject of articles, periodicals and news coverage (forbes, wsj, reuters and zdnet). Tendency for strong keep, even.Editor400 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rewrite by Peter Gulutzan has significantly improved the article. Of the sources quoted in the article, including those added since nomination, the Dr. Dobbs article, Network World article, ZDnet article, and Eweek article are secondary sources, in depth about the topic, and are from reliable sources. The Jaxenter article and Forbes article might be RS, but I cannot tell if they are news stories or blog entries; both are reliable publishers. Given the multiple reliable sources in the article, it looks like this topic passes general notability guidelines. There are a few remaining peacock words in the article, but I don't find it strongly promotional; this is a minor, surmountable problem. Given the notability and the now minor problems, this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2013 (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.