Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okta (company)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okta (company)

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

No evidence of notability of the company provided. ~~Despite the formatting issues (which are fixable)~~. This is just a promotional article about the company. CaptRik (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forbes, Allidm.com, gartner, Tech News World, network world, Baseline Magazine,info world are WP:RS Wikicology (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

completely rewrite and keep - there seems to be the requisite "more than passing coverage by reliable sources" underneath the layers of unadulterated advertisement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:ADMASQ; best to blow it up and start again. ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forbes articles alone establish notability. Also, the reference to wp:TNT above is a pretty reliable signal, in my experience from other AFDs, of inappropriate zeal. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an essay, not policy. References to it are generally acknowledging that a topic is wikipedia-notable but suggesting that material contributed by editors be deleted, and the article be re-started. This ensures that valid contributions are NOT acknowledged, violating core Wikipedia principle that contributions are recognized. Specifically if a Wikipedia article is copied to somewhere else, users are required to give acknowledgement to authors. This breaks connection to authors who did identify a valid topic and probably provided valid material that was re-created in a new article, violating trust. So, definitely keep. --do ncr am 21:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sources for notability and the article has been cleaned up so no need for wp:TNT.I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article passes the test for me. It has produced evidence of notability, though I would like to see the referencing improve since a goodly number are PR style. There are sufficient solid, RS references for it to be acceptable here and the remainder need tidying up and replacing. There is an ANI discussion at present about the editor who accepted this through WP:AFC, arguably too early, where this has been mentioned, and that may lead to a reasonable number of opinions being placed in this discussion now. We must judge the article as it is today, not as it was once. Fiddle Faddle 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I didn't think about this when I mentioned it at ANI - but all the editors who have reworked the article from the state it was in when I nominated it have done a great job, the article is much better balanced now. CaptRik (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptRik: You have the option to withdraw your nomination if you find, as you seem to be considering, the article meets your interpretation of the criteria. I'm sure you already know that, so please treat this as a suggestion to invoke that option. It is unlikely to affect the duration of the discussion, but will affect the outcome. 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that - however I don't feel whether it should be kept or not should be decided based on a procedural call. I'll be happy with the consensus of this regardless of the outcome. CaptRik (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are primarily promotional, either press releases or mere notices, despite a few of them being published in sources which are generally reliable. Even the Forbes article just repeats what the ceo told the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of discussion in sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I am not impressed by the sources; there is little or nothing from what we would term Reliable Sources. True, there are two items from Forbes (a Reliable Source) but they are just funding announcements; and there is one from TechCrunch (arguably a Reliable Source) but it's just basically repeating what Horowitz said on his blog. The rest of the sources are trade journals and such, not known for their editorial oversight. I don't find significant enough Reliable Source coverage to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2014 (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.