Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasuni (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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuni[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The award listed is not significant and well known.

The prior AfD closed as no consensus. I still considered the article to be promotional as citing to The Register and containing promo language on "proprietary technology"; "publishes an annual report on cloud providers" (nothing remarkable about this, just self-promotion); etc. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. All of this suggests that's it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article passes WP:ORG - deletion should only be used when an article is at a point where it cannot be improved to comply to Wikipedia standards. This article can certainly be improved, and in lieu of deletion this article should be tagged and improved as opposed to abandoned. Garchy (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the above keep vote does not specify how the subject passes ORG or which of the sources provide WP:SIGCOV, which I don't see in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply -- Fortune, Forbes, and The Register are just a few that I've found that are WP:RS. There has been plenty of coverage on the company - instead of writing everything here I implore you to hit the "find sources --> news" section above and you will find enough WP:SIGCOV for at least a stub page for this company. I'm adding it into the Nasuni article now, as improving the article is more efficient than debating its deletion. Garchy (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Please list the sources here. We have found over the years at AfD that many articles published in Forbes (for example) are PR and therefore do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Same with Fortune and The Register. Most are "interviews" or "the company announced" type articles (which are not intellectually independent and therefore are not regarded as reliable for the purposes of establishing notability). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up As expected, I've reviewed the sources and they're all the same PR advertorials that are not independent and are really just PR.

The first Forbes article is entitled "A Series of Forbes Insights Profiles of Thought Leaders Changing the Business Landscape: Andres Rodriguez, Founder and CEO, Nasuni" and is really a classic PR "interview" advertorial. Fails WP:RS as it is not "independent".
The Fortune article fails WP:RS for the same reasons - it is not independent and is an interview style advertorial
The first Register article fails WP:RS as ... it is an interview with the CEO over why his co-founder left the company
The second Register article fails WP:RS as it only mentions the company in passing
The StorageReview review could be acceptable as a review of their product so long as the publisher is an independent third party. Unfortunately I don't know but I note that on their website they state that they are independent and it seems fair enough.
The ESG Lab Validation could be acceptable as a review of their product although I suspect that Nasuni paid for it
The second Forbes articles fails for the same reason as the first. It's really an ad.
The third Register article fails because it is not independent as they are essentially using quotes from the CEO and the company to provide the data and facts
The techtarget article starts well but then devotes the entire last section to the VP of product strategy, therefore not independent.
The infostor article appears to be independent and is using various analyst reports (as well as a Nasuni report) for their analysis. This also might be acceptable even allowing for the various quotes. Another opinion required.
The fourth Register article is another thinly disguised advertorial for Nasuni to tempt readers to register (on Nasuni's website) and download a Nasuni report
The arstechnica report is really a Nasuni report. Fails WP:RS as it is not independent.
Same report, different publication (fortune), same failure. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The ESG Lab Validation" is about 99% certain to be a paid for test / review. Analyst reports are generally considered to be self-published sources anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed that not every source provided is great - however, I do think this article can be improved to a point where deletion is not required - some of the sources provided are debatable as to whether they are RS or not - I will go through in more depth what you've provided above later, but at quick glance the TechTarget article with the VP section is not really "devoted" to him - it looks like regular press reporting. I'm not refuting that this article needs work for RS and PROMO - but to delete when there is clearly reliable press coverage (amongst the fluff) seems irresponsible to me. Garchy (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources provided are not independent third party that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- the article has been created and extensively edited by Special:Contributions/Exdejesus with few other contributions. The editor also engaged in promotional editing on other articles such as Pet Lovers Centre. So I believe that maintaining neutrality of this article would be an on-going concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Same rationale as in the previous AfD. Pavlor (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate spam and written to build online PR, references are poor and typically promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before being blocked for two months at 20:36, this editor made, including the !vote here, the following six !votes. Note that the timespan of these !votes is six minutes.

MultiTail

Delete as per above analysis. not important as per wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuni (2nd nomination)

Delete Corporate spam and written to build online PR, references are poor and typically promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enantra

Delete non notable encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zinaps AntiSpyware 2008

Delete Corporate Spam and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat View Kindergarten

Delete As per above Light2021 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymatrix

Delete As per above. As it is clear that this is going to be Corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a late-stage startup with a recent three-week AfD. Since the close of the last AfD, this company received attention for a new round of financing. In addition to this finance coverage in December, there are three articles and two smaller mentions at Google news within the past week. Editors may reasonably challenge their depth, but they each add significant coverage to a topic the community accepts or at least doesn't reject. Any remaining doubt IMO is decided by the existence of coverage at Google books and Google scholar. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as clear advertising aloneBethNaught~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyufg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Above account has made only one edit, seems to clearly be a single purpose account. Garchy (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the above comment. The user who posted this, Qwertyufg, was blocked for impersonation of another user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone and "this [starting] company received attention for a new round of funding" exactly violates WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT as it's simply trivial business announcing, worse if the only defense to it is "It's from last month and there are articles about it" as it's still non-negotiable in our policies. What stays solid here is our policy WP:NOT because of the fact it's not interchangeable with anything else (Wikipedia is not advertising is one of the encyclopedia pillars), and the current sources are all in fact either published or republished PR, emphasizing that's the only attention here, including if the company motivated it. "Editors may reasonably challenge their depth" is exactly what happens here and especially for such clear company campaigning. WP:ORG has never been policy because it's a suggestively-focused guideline that compliments the other company suggestions, but it's never been a fact-policy. Current sources:
From their 1st company quarter in 2014
From their 1st company quarter in 2015
business announcement after their quarter
same
1st company quarter again, but a republished announcement with a clear label
one of their later company quarters
same, but in a different year
same as earlier
same as earlier, but after quarter
same as earlier, conveniently after a quarter
quarter-nearby announcement
business announcement
None of this in fact amounts to substance because it's simply trivial.

SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Substance" is not a policy-based word. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources is trivial in the meaning intended by the guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the advertising is clear, the advertising needs to be identified as per our policy WP:NOTADVERTISING and removed. As a surmountable problem, this does not affect AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've quoted me as saying, "this [starting] company received attention for a new round of funding". But a "starting" company is not the same thing as a "late-stage start-up" company. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that there is such a thing as a "violation" of CORPDEPTH. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding, " 'this...company received attention for a new round of funding' exactly violates WP:CORPDEPTH...as it's simply trivial business announcing", I took a look at CORPDEPTH. I see no relation to anything in CORPDEPTH, much less "exactly". Here seem to be the closest points from WP:CORPDEPTH:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,

Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, " 'this...company received attention for a new round of funding' exactly violates...WP:NOT...as it's simply trivial business announcing", I took at look at WP:NOT. I found only one use of the word "trivial", where it says, "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties." So the claim that there is an exact statement in WP:NOT cannot be confirmed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that a topic is not notable can't just look in the article and make vague waves about other sources. Due diligence requires evidence of absence, not an absence of evidence. At the previous AfD, there was no consensus that the topic was not notable. Any doubt that these sources are sufficient is defined at CORPDEPTH as the material to write more than a "very brief" stub article, which we have had. Since the last AfD, I've identified seven new articles at Google news, which continue to contribute to notability over and above any bare minimum. These are not articles about company phone numbers. We are talking about research done by reporters asking questions and gathering information. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY only leads to deletion if the problem cannot be fixed by editing. WP:ATD is also a policy and says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." You've come up with a new claim that "Wikipedia is not advertising" is a pillar, but I'm unable to verify your claim. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quote without comment: "the current sources are all in fact either published or republished PR, ...such clear company campaigning." Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2017 (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.