Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zadara Storage (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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Zadara Storage

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Zadara Storage
• Articles for deletion/Zadara Storage (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Zadara Storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article on a business which appears to be marginally notable at best. I'm not finding any useful sources in a Google search (string: zadara) with most of the sources pulled up being press releases, normally-unreliable sources, or routine business coverage, particularly M&A and partnership coverage. As the prior AfD's close encouraged filing a new AfD if the issues persisted - and based on a look, they have for the past four and a half years - here we are again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - I just cleaned up and updated the article with some recent news. There's other coverage about a 2018 funding round [[1]] but I don't think the article needs it - what's there now meets WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fundraising news is not significant coverage and doesn't help for notability. Most of what is there is more of the same as that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable company with trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are multiple sources, every source is independent, and everything is sourced. Meets WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage. Which sources are independent, secondary (this gets rid of articles that are 100% interviews with 0% commentary), and not trivial? We need two sources like that. I want to keep this article, but we need sources that prove notability. "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

• Keep The article has citations from 9 sources (maybe more, maybe less, but about 9) and it is reasonably well-written. Of the 9 sources cited, I think 5 meet WP:GNG standards. 5 sources feels like enough to establish notability. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

• Most of the sources cited are routine business news that would be reported on as a matter of course and are thus not sufficient enough to help notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" I found that on WP:HELPAFD. I did not create this article, but I do think it should continue existing. At least two people have written something substantive about Zadara. [2][3] There's also 12 other citations in the article (10 if you get rid of the other times venturebeat.com was cited), some of which go past trivial mentions. You said that most of the sources cited are routine business news. Which articles does that apply to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceTortoise (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• In re [4]: Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...Coverage] of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance[...] (emphasis added). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• As to the rest: [5] is an interview with a company principal and thus cannot be third-party. [6] is routine coverage (Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:[...Coverage] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business[...]), [7] is another interview with a company principal on a blog, [8] is more routine coverage ([...coverage] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital), [9] barely talks about Zadara in the first place, [10] is more M&A news, [11] is insanely short as an article and half of it is a quote from a Zadara employee, [12] is dead, [13] is a patent search engine, [14] is insanely short on details, [15] talks more about the underlying tech than Zadara. I cannot assess the whitepaper being cited, and [16] is the only source I can see that seems usable other than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG --Devokewater 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Timtempleton, PrinceTortoise, Devokewater I see your !votes all say that the topic meets GNG. The appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP which has stricter interpretations on requirements especially with regard to references/sources used to establish notability. Can you confirm you believe the sources meet NCORP and if so, can you point to which references you believe meet NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I read WP:NCORP. All I've done with the information on that page is confirm that many sources do not establish notability. The Register might meet the qualifications, but I'm not 100% sure. I think Devokewater and/or HighKing should review that one. I can't read [17] or [18], so I can't assess whether or not those have substantial coverage on Zadara. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise
• They are a well-known + prominent key player, with a high profile in the cloud storage industry, there have been numerous articles about them (including in The Register) that satisfies WP:NCORP, see here they are described has being a top key player, being compared with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, Oracle etc. --Devokewater 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Did you even look at those sources? Both of them appear to be published to the site by market research analysts directly, which implies that website has no actual editorial oversight as required by WP:RS. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't really relevant since no one is questioning the reliability of The Register, but The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles according to WP:RSP. More relevant, it does not seem that mccourier has editorial oversight. PrinceTortoise (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

• I was meaning the mccourier sources, not The Register. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I know, and I agree the mccourier sources don't appear to have the editorial oversight required by WP:GNG. However, according to WP:NCORP, "the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source". PrinceTortoise (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

• Question Can anyone read [19] or [20]? The first of those looks like it might have something substantial on Zadara, but I would need to create a Gartner Research account and purchase the document to read it. PrinceTortoise (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete This has been considerably expanded since the previous AfD which closed without consensus — whether it has been improved is another matter: most of the contents are pretty un-encyclopaedic drivel about funding rounds etc., and the sources (which clearly try to make up in quantity what they lack in quality) are primary and/or non-RS; CRN is probably the best of the lot, but typically much of its contents come from press releases and the like. I've nothing inherently against this article, it isn't overly promotional or spammy in nature etc., but try as I might I can't find any decent sources that would establish notability beyond reasonable doubt, hence my vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep There are sufficient sources including analyst report to meet the NCORP requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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.