Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubera (GetApp)

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 no consensus. On the border to keep. Sandstein 18:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nubera (GetApp)

[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)

WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A review of the sources and a WP:BEFORE search all shows mere announcements, press releases, and hits in other unreliable sources lacking editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple brochure article by UPE. The only highlight is that references, if it possible (Which I didn't think it was), are totally rank. scope_creep^Talk 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the number of sources and they look pretty decent. Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, The Next Web, Mergr and Information week. The article itself might need some work but I haven't found any blatant signs of promotion or advertising. Furthermore, I see this page no different from the other Gartner's acquisitions. The company seems notable in the software industry as it is literally a directory and review guide for businesses, - something like Yellow Pages directory. The company has been acquired by Gartner and it is still active and operates as a separate entity in its area of review business. Here are the other Gartner's daughter companies that have Wikipedia pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEB_Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Advice Idunnox3 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I doubled checked a few sources in the article and none of them appears on the «deprecated sources» or «perennial sources» lists here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

The only two publications that might be revised are published on the Crunchbase but since they are actual articles (not company’s profile), I’m not so sure about those two in particular but the rest of the sources look good.--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate any additional insight! Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails to satisfy WP:NCORP, indeed WP:ARTSPAM CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gartner, the subsidiary is not separately notable from the parent company that has owned it for a majority of its existence. BD2412 T 03:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SIGCOV in three TechCrunch sources. The rest don't establish SIGCOV but they don't need to (an article which passes GNG doesn't magically become crap if you include more references). I'm not seeing a lack of notability here: AfD is to determine whether an article is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, not pass judgment on whether its subject is stupid. jp×g 23:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of good coverage, such as in-depth at Techcrunch also in Entrepreneur.Peter303x (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plainly not spam and passes WP:GNG with the coverage that is currently provided. Merging doesn't seem appropriate given how specific the content is to this company. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2021 (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.