Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marxent Labs

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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marxent Labs[edit]

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

The company is about five years old and has just 40 employees, however it is the subject of an in-depth 4-page article in Forbes. There are also several good local sources like this and trade press.[1][2][3]

A few years ago I might have said they were clearly notable and would have been correct, but the community's notability standards have increased for commercial topics, to the point of virtually prohibiting articles on startups that aren't clearly and overwhelmingly notable. The Forbes article is the only truly in-depth, mainstream, national source I have found, whereas we require "multiple". Many editors don't count local press for notability and the trade press articles are not substantial, in-depth works. The company's size and age are also factors. That being said, there is enough content in reliable sources to have a small article that is reliably sourced.

I have a financial connection. The problems with the current article, such as relying heavily on sources that only briefly mention the company and an unreasonable focus on products, are inconsequential. If the article is kept, I will rework it up to a GA level of quality. However, I am leaning more towards the community's preference being to delete and so did not want to work on it without seeing if it would survive AfD. CorporateM (Talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analyzing the paragraphs in the Forbes article: (omitting short transitions that don't say anything much)

Mild Puffery/personal: para.page: 1.1, 1.3 2,1 2.2 3.2 3.3 3.4

Puffery: . l.12, 1.7, 1.8 2.7 3.5 3.6

General industry comment: 1.4, 1.5 2.4 3.7

NPOV description: 1.6 2.5 2.6 2.8

that gives a little less than 25% acceptable content. None of it indicates such things as market share, stability, acceptance in the commercial world,academic discussion.

So the qy I ask CorporateM is why did Forbes run the story: because of the unusual nature of the firm or its history--not really, its pretty standard. Because of the general interest in any VR firm? to some degree. Because they are running similar stories on all VR startups? I haven't checked that, but it's possible. Because they thing that of all VR firms this is the most promising or the most exciting? There's nothing in the so try to suggest that, and Forbes is objective enough not to pretend otherwise--which is why we can use them as a source in the first place. Because a company principal or press agent convinced a Forbes editor or reporter that since they should choose this one? CorpporateM, I think you've suggested to me in the past this is the usual reason for press coverage of small companies. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is really an accurate representation of what I've said about PR's influence on the media... I haven't read the Forbes piece and am not in a position to speculate about the author's motives... not really advocating one way or another. CorporateM (Talk) 23:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For this particular article, the references are trivial, and the accomplishments such as to be appropriate for a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent reason for deletion, and it is not necessary to specify exactly the relevant contributions of each half of the combination. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company not notable at all and the article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:07, 24 June 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.