Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accellion, Inc.


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Accellion, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the company isn't notable, and most of the sources I'm looking at on the article aren't reliable or are just press release type sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not just those that may or may not be present within Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep notability is proven by references, and enough of the references are good reliable 3rd party sources, such as  eweek and InformationWeek. That some sources are not reliable for notability  doers not prove thatall of them are!  DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a lot of references for the article, but many are brief references or non-independent. I tried to identify what counts as a reliable source by seeking sources which are (a) not related to Accellion (b) are in publications important enough to have a Wikipedia page (c) have an article which provides a significant amount of info on Accellion - not perfect criteria, but a reasonable guide.  Those criteria allow references from eWeek, InformationWeek, and Network World; I've not checked all the other references on the article but I think those I list are enough to establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, it's just another enterprise software company, providing secure collaboration, managed file transfer and secure file hosting solutions advertising on Wikipedia.  Because the article fails to establish why anyone who isn't an IT worker or industry analyst to have heard of this business, it fails to establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture.  Article is written in non-neutral complete bollocks from top to bottom; if kept the entire text needs to be replaced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "just another"="idon'tlikeit." That it be of interest to a person in the same very large general professional segment "an IT worker" is sufficient. This is like saying an article on a classical musician   should be deleted because it's of interest only to the minority of people who like classical music.  To whom are our article on Unix software of interest? Surely only the relatively few people who know about Unix. And why should anyone care about ipads except the several million people who have one or might buy one?    DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:B2B rationale. I would also note that this company didn't produce any notable products, which means that whatever frequent it is mentioned in the media, it can't be notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * that's not the standard. A company can be notable even if none of its individual products is separately notable. In fact, when the products are semi-notable, we normally direct to the company. Anyway, you haven't shown that none of it's products aren't notable; just that they don't yet have Wikipedia articles. If one were written, you'd probably  say."Not from a notable company, so how can one of  its products   be notable?"  DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is this company notable for? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:B2B is a rationale, but is not a Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Also note the reliable sources that are cited in my !vote below. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:B2B is a verbose but accurate explanation of WP:NCORP, which is Wikipedia guideline. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Medium-sized software company with no particular claim to distinction. Although 30 references are provided, they are not from independent reliable sources. Google News search finds mostly press releases. Some awards are claimed but they are not major. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and as such, the topic is therefore notable per WP:GNG:
 * Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal: Accellion raises $12M for expansion plans
 * eWeek.com: Device Keeps Large Files Moving
 * eWeek.com: Harvard CIO Herds Large File Transfers
 * Network World: Learn to love e-mail attachments again
 * Information Week: No File Is Too Big For New File-Transfer Appliance
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sources: (1) lacks depth, most part is quote of employee; (2), (4) and (5) contain nothing about the company at all — these sources are about company's product and notability of company can't be derived from its products; (3) doesn't even briefly mention the company. Summary: none of these sources support the keep position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - As of this post, the article has been cleaned up, and rewritten to a neutral point of view: diff page. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only notable sources in this article are press releases. This article does not meet WP:CORP and is tangibly promotional. A news search does not yield any further notable sources, so deletion seems reasonable at this time.CittaDolente (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you further qualify the references cited in my !vote above as press releases, or as sourced from press releases? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Generally promotional in tone, and most of the references are not appropriate. DaveApter (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am having a hard time learning much about the company from this article. Information on the products might be better placed in articles discussing a variety of similar products.  I would like also see an article on this company, but that would be a very small article, considering what has actually be said so far about the actual company.  Wikfr (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, though only just. It needs a substantial rewrite. It has too much media-release promotional bits, and other parts are too plain a directory style overview. There is a lack of critical review. I suspect that some genuine commentary may be found in the references of the Reception section. I haven't looked as yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. Wikfr (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2012 (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.