Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algolia


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Algolia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails at WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Not enough coverage on reliable source. 5 out of 7 references are self published by the company or entities related to the company. Other sources are not reliable. Plus this article is promoting the subject. G11 and A7 was removed by a wikipedian user with a dubious edit summary. Hitro  talk  20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Contested A7 speedy. One would think that a nominator whose sole contribution seems to be listing articles for CSD they would have learned by now not to edit-war on adding and re-adding a challenged CSD.
 * As to the subject here, then this is a tiny, newish article on a little-known startup. A startup which has though passed through Y Combinator (who know a thing or two) and who have raised $18.3M in funding.
 * I fail to understand the notion that because there are a number of SPS sources here explaining the technology, those then invalidate the independent reporting of the company's third seed round funding.
 * This is not a good article. There is minimal coverage out there on the company and it is still strongly focussed on the May 2015 funding round. However to claim that this fails WP:CDS – you're having a laugh. Maybe coverage will improve in the future. Maybe an editor with time to work on improving articles will get the chance to do so, rather than sinking into this pointless waste of time here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The nominator is well aware of what he is doing, you can't justify him with his 50 last edits when he has over 12000 edits. However, 1.Edit war "edit-war", that was my first edit to that article, it should not be considered edit war plus this is not the place to discuss edit wars. 2. Adding adding, I restored CSD and informed you on your talk page, you should not just make a fuss about it. 3. ReAdding re-adding, I again informed you on your talk page and explained in my edit summary why I restored the CSD and asked you to make case on talk page. Article creator should not remove the CSD template, it's clearly mentioned on the template. I guess you never understood what I meant.  Hitro   talk  21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now coming to the article, self published sources have no strength of verifiability, the sources in the article are mostly written by company employees or are unreliable. If you think coverage will improve in future and people will improve this article then I should say that this is not an encyclopedic article in it's current form and  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Hitro   talk  21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Dedicated articles at Forbes (yes, FORBES!), Market Wired, Tech Crunch, Venture Beat. Interviews at Stack Share and profiled at Crunch Base. Coverage is international. There is more, but that is more than enough to justify its existence.  Easily meets WP:ORG for WP:CORPDEPTH alone. Statements of promotional tone were questionable at best, and certainly not unambiguous enough for a Speedy Delete request.  Recommend a serving of WP:TROUT to go with a WP:SNOW keep.   Scr ★ pIron IV 21:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not an article. It is a blog and it is clearly mentioned on the page Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.. So please do not exaggerate your opinion on a blog. Coverage should be in reliable sources, it hardly matters it's international or Italian or from Papua New Guinea. That is not the point to keep an article. Fails at WP:ORG that's why it is nominated. Certainly fails at WP:CORPDEPTH but it qualifies few points mentioned in the "except" section of that criteria. There are trivial information in TechCrunch And VB about 18.3 million investment. That does not make a company encyclopedic. Why other sources are reliable? Are they reliable enough? I dont think they are.  Hitro   talk  21:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogs can be a WP:RS, when appearing in vetted magazines and newspapers. There is oversight - and not all blogs are opinion pieces.  We are talking Forbes, not Wordpress. Or do you fail to understand what Forbes is? The point of international coverage is not whether it is "Italian or from Papua New Guinea" - International coverage displays breadth of coverage, and international importance. It DOES matter when a company gets international coverage.  Your failure to understand that basic fact is appalling. Yes, the article can be improved, and it is not perfect.  But it never qualified for your spurious "Speedy Delete" request, and should not be deleted through this process either.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Forbes is not endorsing that blog. Yes we are not talking Wordpress Joomla or Drupal. We are talking Forbes and they are not endorsing the source that you are making your case upon, Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.. How many times do you see that written on Forbes article....specially when you find a dedicated article at Forbes and written by Forbes staff. It does matter when a company get coverage in reliable sources, otherwise we will never have articles of company from Jamaica, Ecuador or Fiji. Now, Blogs can be WP:RS. Please link that section in WP:RS where they mentioned Blogs can be reliable. DID you meanWP:NEWSBLOG?  Hitro   talk  19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Forbes article appears to be a blog post, but I'd argue that it, along with the TechCrunch and VentureBeat material, are enough to establish it as notable. Moreover, while the article does display a bit of puffery, it doesn't come close to being a page that is exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic (emphasis in original). --Richard Yin (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, the Infrastructure section in particular could use a rework/removal. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. By no means a perfect article, but it isn't overly promotional and it seems to have sufficiently well sourced to justify notability. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources are questionable, thats why it's here. Hitro   talk  21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's here because you chanced across it, and you don't do any other editing than listing things at CSD: so you listed it, and you re-listed it, and you re-listed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are millions of articles in Wikipedia. I definitely came across it by chance, so what?. If you wanna criticize my contribution then talk to me on my talk page. We will and we should discuss about this article here, nothing else. Wikipedia is good place cuz useless articles get deleted speedily and it's cuz of those contributors who list those useless articles, we should not take their contributions lightly or for granted. We should respect every single contribution. I tell you now.... This article is here cuz it has weak sources.... Lets discuss the sources one by one... highscalibility.com.. that article is written by Julien Lemoine( CTO @ Algolia). leanstack.io ...that article is written by Nicolas Dessaigne(CEO @ Algolia). medium.com ...it's again the article written by CTO at Algolia. Other sources are directy from algolia.com. Forbes stuff is a blog. I mentioned it above. Other sources from techcrunch and VB are referring to the investment of 18.3 millions USD....I dont think it makes this company encyclopedic. This article is here for those reason. Plus read Technology and Infrastructure section, they are written in complete promotional tone, at least nowhere near to an encyclopedic article. I still think there is no indication of importance or notability.  Hitro   talk  19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for information and to get pass any confusion, Forbes bloggers are known as Forbes Contributors. Forbes do not endorse their views, anyone can become a Forbes contributor if he or she has good writing skills. Article by Forbes staffs are endorsed by Forbes. Refer to contact section and Forbes Terms for more info on this.  Hitro   talk  20:33, 23 August 2015 (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.