Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alteryx


 * 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   delete. I'm unable to find any redeeming sources as well. m.o.p 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alteryx

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Most of the references are to the company's own literature; article is written very much like an advertisement, but not quite blatant enough for a CSD G11! I'm also doubtful if this is a sufficiently notable company to have its own article. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete  I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this company. The company's website and press releases don't establish notability, and being on a trade publication's list of "40 companies to watch in 2011" is not significant coverage.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - all I could find were press releases and company stuff. Nothing at all notable. No reliable refs. 'Fast and flexible'. At least that means it'll fit into the trash can easily. Sigh. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, spam that fits the profile: a business intelligence (BI) software platform delivered in desktop, server and cloud environments including software as a service (SaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) offerings in hosted and on-premise deployments.... Thanks for pointing out that 'business intelligence' has the initials 'BI'. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep although admit it was even worse before I tried to rescue it so not adamant. I do find value in spelling out acronyms; not everyone knows that "BI" for example does not refer to its other common meaning :-) My thinking was that it seemed to be selected by the US Census Bureau to publish data, but not sure if that is really a notable distinction or just a press release that anyone could claim (e.g. is the data actually public domain?). W Nowicki (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like a single-purpose account created this on their second edit, and only made two main space edits in two days. The US Census web site just lists them in a list of other vendors, so perhaps there is no distinction there after all. Another alternative would be to Userfy in case the editor ever comes back and can work it, say, adding more independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to be able to save this page, but what do I need to do so? I don't want to spend time if you've already decided it's a goner.  Just a quick disclaimer I work for the company and so am somewhat biased on the subject and am also author of a blog on Alteryx (http://ukalteryxuser.blogspot.com).  I've never really edited much here, but I used to be an admin over at wikibooks a few years back so have a vague appreciation over these kind of decisions.  In terms of external references my quick 5 minutes has pulled out this one (http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/bi-or-li-alteryx-can-play-in-either-but-theres-no-magic-quadrant-answe/169181).  Is that the kind of thing I would need? Thanks --AdRiley (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a step in the right direction. Although it looks like that article has a disclaimer that Alteryx paid the author's expenses to a conference. Even better would be something by a professional journalist who has no association with the company. What I was suggesting would be to, say, move the article into --User:AdRiley/Alteryx so that if the company ever does get independent coverage you could start from there and try again. W Nowicki (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry didn't see that disclaimer when I posted it. So I guess the best reference which I have for notability is the US Census. It is more than "just a press release that anyone could claim".  If you look at the screen-shots of their software here http://www.census.gov/support/cen2000_sf1data.html you can see the Powered By SRC (the old compnay name) on their software. i.e. Their software is running Alteryx software under the hood.  If you are going to Userfy then it would probably make more sense to do it under the original author (I haven't actually edited the page yet, but will clean it up some more if it is kept). Thanks for your consideration. --AdRiley (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh two more references for consideration then I'll be quiet and go carry on with what I'm supposed to be doing. http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000008818 and http://www.idevnews.com/stories/4527/Alteryx-Powers-Location-Based-BI-with-Wizards-Cloud-and-Data-Indexing --AdRiley (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I am withdrawing my delete recommendation on the basis of the additional sources which AdRiley has brought forward. The sources aren't quite enough to persuade me to recommend keeping, but are progress in the right direction.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Tried searching for reliable sources. Closest one is from Reuters but it's a press release; not independently generated. Maybe the principal editors can find .gov or .edu sources? The Census Bureau might have a web page about the subject somewhere. Something like that will probably help. Pmresource (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looked at the Census screenshots but there's no information there linking the subject to SRC. Pmresource (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails verifiability and violates neutral point of view. No independent reliable sources after extensive search. Article reads like a corporate brochure. Pmresource (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the Directions Magazine, Alteryx supported travel expenses to Inspire 2011 of source author Joe Francica. Pmresource (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the Microsoft Case Study, it's a sales pitch for the Windows Azure Platform where the subject bought DataMarket.
 * As for the Integration Developer News, it's a sales pitch for the subject’s DemographicsNow with a call to action starting at $159 a month. Pmresource (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I think the sources are just  sufficiently reliable. Dealing with the last 3 objections,  Paying travel expenses is not such a drastic COI as to make the report unreliable. The Microsoft page is not third party with respect to Windows Azure, but it is  3rd party with respect to Alteryx. Paying travel expenses is not such a drastic COI as to make the report unreliable. Many reliable review articles also give the price.   DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mm. The sources are very weak indeed. They are independent enough to show Existence but that is not proof of notability; and the contents of the sources (discussed above) fail to establish notability. A census is trustworthy but it only shows existence, for instance. This remains a clear Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. If we're scratching around to find a few words here or there to justify this company having an article, why not wait until the position is clearer - in a few years time, say. After all: (1) there's no rush (just an opinion), (2) lack of this particular article won't damage the encyclopedia in any way, and (3) it's not as if it's important for the company itself to have an article here, is it? —S MALL  JIM   19:41, 24 October 2011 (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.