Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaware

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exaware

[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)

No sources I could find apart from press releases or passing mentions such as here or here. PK650 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Though coverage is somewhat sparse, I believe current coverage satisfies WP:GNG. This article is from VentureBeat, which is deemed a generally reliable source via WP:RSP. In addition to information from the company itself, this article also references a WSJ article and provides broader context on the industry and partners, so it appears to satisfy independent reporting and content. Does this article seem to satisfy guidelines? I previously through GigaOm would work, but I am no longer sure (which probably means that it would be worth mentioning on WP:RSN, given that it's a source used in a few hundred articles). Also, could a description of what's wrong with the multichannel coverage be provided? I think there might be problems with independent content, but the source is pretty good, the author is a consistent writer on the site, and the article appears under the general news section. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I found a few additional sources by looking in Israeli news sources. I may have missed some significant coverage beyond what I've described above by doing so. I will see whether Israeli or Hebrew-language sources have additional information if the above doesn't suffice. Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Compass-EOS got some press-release type coverage, but the connection with Exaware looks like WP:OR with only passing mention, and almost nothing coming up on all the search links above. Re: GigaOm used # of times, I'll quote you: "As usual, the number of citations currently on wikipedia isn't a good indicator of reliability." Why would you think any differently here (rhetorical)? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misreading my statement on GigaOm here. It is worth discussing because it may be overused. Jlevi (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly promotional press release that fails the WP:SIGCOV requirement of WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, existing references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 24 April 2020 (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.