Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataRobot (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataRobot[edit]

[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)

Renominating for the same reason as prior. Straight up WP:ARTSPAM with little coverage, mostly WP:MILL and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, still routine coverage and business listings, far from reaching notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. still no evidence or notability. It appears to be a routine servvice company, and the sources do not meet NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as I can see, there has been no development of the article since the soft delete after AfD earlier this month. The many references are routine announcements, partnership listings, etc. Despite the quantity, neither these nor searches are showing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 18 October 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.