Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airware


 * 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  21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Airware

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Largely a business listing with only what would be advertised to clients including the fact it's focused with such specifics as company funding, support and activities and the sources mirror it by only being mere announcements and mentions; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and searches simply found the mirrored ones like here. History shows no convincing signs other than the casual changes in a presumably manner of keeping it as an exact business listing. When we founded Wikipedia, one of our main policies was not allowing advertising and this here fits the exact criteria. In fact, even the current source adding couldn't satisfy what our policies need, see:
 * 1 is still too trivial, being at their business-specific section, and itself contains noticeable business quotes
 * 2 is itself a PR-award, which violates WP:CORPDEPTH which states such PR awards are unacceptable, regardless wherever published
 * 3 is still similar to the first one, which itself then contains a CV-esque of the company's own funding and financial history before finishing a few sentences later with the "Trademarked by Airware". which violates WP:CORPDEPTH once again
 * 4 is itself a business announcement, including focusing in a "New business"-esque with all the natural signs of PR
 * 5 is still a business published announcement
 * 6
 * 7 is a clearly labeled press release, since it formally states "Company gains new funding" which itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH (which itself is a simplest standard before WP:NOT is then applied)
 * The next two, 8 and 9, still violate WP:CORPDEPTH given they're PR publications which we've long labeled as unacceptable given their clear focus in PR and satisfying the company's own need for it, their articles will also then clearly state "Information by the company". Although these two may not, they still largely focus solely in the company's own quoted words, website-supported information and their financials and fundin
 * See also then my own executed search which found nothing but clear announcements and here's the analysis:
 * first 10 here all consist of either clearly labeled press releases, trade publications or republishing of it
 * next 10 is same (and I even found one of the PRs from above in there)
 * next 10 is same, along with a few majorly published ones here and there
 * next 10 is same
 * next 10 is same
 * next 10 is same
 * If we cannot even guarantee the substance our policies would need, there's nothing to suggest why settling with published and republished business announcements would benefit our encyclopedia. As it is, there's the clear history signs alone, take this SPA for example, which cared to focus with mentioning the company. SwisterTwister   talk  19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to the examples below. North America1000 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
 * These are the same sources as shown and analyzed above. I will note, however, something I had not mentioned above, which is the blatantly press release ones are casually placed whenever the company's capital quarter happened, which is beyond simply being coincidental when every single article shares the same PR consistency. To actually quote WP:CORPDEPTH: [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements and statements, press releases, passing mentions, anything by or for the company and advertising or anything where the company talks about itself, wherever" and that fits the sources, therefore unconvincing. SwisterTwister   talk  22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertorials and/or PR announcements abound which follow the same pattern: overview of drones, CEO's MIT background, amount of funding raised, quotes/interview from CEO. The sources mentioned above follow the same pattern. The "USA Today" articles are a profile of a company that entered their competition and a profile of the winner. Same pattern. Ditto for "The Register" and the WSJ article. The Washington Monthly article appears to be an attempt at lobbying to change the laws in the USA, complete with ample quotes and arguments from Jesse Kallman, Airware's head of business development. The Ars Technica article is a little difference as it discusses the product and a Raspberry Pi. Not a brilliant source but can be useful to indicate notability - just not enough on its own. -- HighKing ++ 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Topic appears to have emerged from the startup phase, even if just barely.  Topic has received significant attention in reliable sources that satisfy WP:CORP, and these sources are available in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; coverage is shallow and PR-driven. Wikipedia is not an investment prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (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.