Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LatentView

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. KTC (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LatentView[edit]

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

Highly promotional and borderline notability : "one of the winners" "among the top 10: "runner-up" "one of the fastest growing" ,"cool vendor" . Every source is essentially a press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nonnotable awards which are zillion a dime a dick. Sources only PR. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as this is a New Jersey-based company so all coverage is going to be English and the best my searches found was this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article obviously requires extensive rewrite, but I think it is notable enough to warrant a page. The company has been covered quite a bit in news articles in reliable media sources (Example 1, Example 2), plus it is referenced frequently (with quotes from key personnel, etc.) in news / media articles on the Analytics industry (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6). Some of these may be passing references, but the fact that this company is among the few mentioned by name in news reports about the industry itself shows that it is notable within the industry. - Aurorion (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources mentioned in the last comment are either straight PR (even if reprinted by newspapers) or, as admitted, mere comments. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches don't turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 5 November 2015 (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.