Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALICE (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 no consensus. So Why 10:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALICE (company)[edit]

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

A promotional page created from advertorial links and press releases. Anything notable about this company could be mentioned at Expedia. Only notable fact is that Expedia has invested in this company. Perrythwi (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as New York Business Journal and The Daily Dot Atlantic306 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent indications of notability beyond being funded, overly promotional fails WP:SPIP. The references fail the criteria for establishing notability. The ones mentioned above are based on interviews with company personnel and are churnalism and have no intellectually independent content and both fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, article also fails WP:SPIP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage to meet WP:CORP, interview with personnel and passing mention cannot establish notability.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Atlantic306. Satisfies GNG. I am not satisfied that the neologism "churnalism" is a valid concept or valid criticism. If a journalist honestly believed that what was said at an interview was the truth, and his belief was reasonable, he is entitled to use it, in my provisional opinion. "I believe what the interviewee said" is an independent opinion. I am unable to accept "churnalism" as an argument for deletion at time. James500 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company has received substantial coverage in reliable independent source. Surprising that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the broader topic of Digital concierge. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has references from independent sources. Could be changed some to be less advertisement-y, but is notable enough to not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanSW (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; sourcing is WP:SPIP, passing mentions, and / or churnalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of the Expedia investment, and the news that further development is ongoing, after the GoConcierge acquisition, as reported in the NY Times.[[1]]. Many of the current sources are lesser known trade pubs, but there's also additional fair to minor coverage in the NY Post,[[2]] CNN,[[3]] and USA Today.[[4]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (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.