Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcasa

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. Sandstein 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcasa[edit]

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

Nonnotable software startup Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the subject appears to have received passing mention in multiple non-primary non-english sources, but given the language barrier, I cannot determine whether any of those mentions are significant coverage of the subject, or to what extent the size of the passing mentions in those multiple non-primary sources would add up to significant coverage, or whether those sources are reliable at all. Perhaps this should be labelled with a Eastern European delsort, so that those who can interpret the slavic alphabet can look at the sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This article seems relevant to me as I've seen Bitcasa mentioned in tech press, especially when other cloud providers are reviewed. The guidelines link I just read said that notability for companies includes independent press coverage and profiles. I see plenty of coverage and profiles when I search them. The language in the article does however have a marketing angle to it and needs to be toned down, but the sources are good to me. (Bloomberg, TechCrunch, etc)Synergee (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Profiles" are cheap. Just cut and paste from company's handouts. A good PR guy may generate dosens of such placements (Bloomberg, TechCrunch, etc). Especially because the startup investors are vitally interested in publicity. The key word here is "independent". I.e. someone actually tried the product or collected the statistics of usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usual marketroid superhype about promised future user's bliss, available for each and every startup. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TechCrunch is a reliable outlet, but it is the only good reference. This software has won a TC contest, and so TC wrote an article about it, tad self-promotional. Needs independent reviews, and one in PCWorld is still not cutting it, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another unremarkable startup with an unremarkable business plan: offering unlimited data storage as a cloud service. It should take more than simply having its existence noted: a flurry of reviews of a new product is not evidence of the sort of enduring significance needed to turn a business into a encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
Keep Is my official vote after digging a bit deeper. Many US storage providers are not actually encrypted. The international press on Bitcasa seems better and more insightful than what's been written in the US. My theory is that the US press is not as interested in encryption as Europe or Oceania. I can try expanding the article based on what I've been reading if that helps. Synergee (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lack of indep WP:RS in the article yes (startup hype). The de-dup is notable as a service. There is significant secondary coverage e.g. [1] etc... that can be added so it easily passes WP:ORG WP:GNG Widefox; talk 12:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of sources for this topic, some already in the article and many yet to be mined but which are evident with proper searching.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added some new sources and toned down some promotional language. Others are welcome to join in improving this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:55, 12 April 2013 (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.