Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appboy


 * 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. As in other recent cases, opinions are divided about whether the sources are sufficient for an article or whether they and the article itself are merely a promotional exercise.  Sandstein  19:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Appboy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My detailed and extensive PROD here was removed with the apparent basis of adding sources, but I myself have examined several single of those newly added sources, they are simply PR and PR-like attempts from the company to seek and establish funding and financing; the fact the listed news themselves are far apart in time that it shows the company themselves simply likely motivated the supposed "news" themselves. The TechCrunch article not only mentions "starts funding" in its name, but the article goes as far to contain "Of course, that’s all well and good, but how exactly is AppBoy looking to improve the discovery of apps, up intelligence on users, and encourage engagement? " No honest journalist would put that unless they wanted to fluff the company and perhaps motivate its own clients and investors to place interest. The AppDeveloper magazine source, I'll note is clearly simply a "report guide" in that it only partly mentions the company in the said company (Appboy) 's own report. The Fortune magazine itself then only mentions exactly what a PR agent places: what the company's business and activities are and what the company's goals are; this exact article then goes through the specifications about the company's own funding and financial activities and then about its services and its status. That article then states '''Tewari declined to disclose the amount his group has invested in Appboy or whether his parent company uses Appboy’s technology. However, he did observe that a far larger percentage of the bank’s interactions with accountholders are taking place via mobile banking applications and other digital messaging venues''', something that the businessperson would be motivated to mention especially if seeking clients and investors, something any newly started and seeking-ground-company would want. That article then continues saying the employees information, where they are located, "It doesn’t disclose its total customer count" is something that is not actually of necessary substance, so it's not something exactly convincing of notability here. The article finishes with then talking about other notable companies and the "needs of customers". All in all, my examinations are simply finding nothing to suggest both independent notability substance and then non-PR based sources and attempts. SwisterTwister  talk  03:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. It's important to note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various pr websites. North America1000 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * – Don't be misled by the title of the TechCrunch article directly above, which could lead one to think that it's just routine coverage about funding. It certainly is not. The article provides information about the company's focus, background information, what the company's software does, and more.
 * – Don't be misled by the title of the TechCrunch article directly above, which could lead one to think that it's just routine coverage about funding. It certainly is not. The article provides information about the company's focus, background information, what the company's software does, and more.
 * – Don't be misled by the title of the TechCrunch article directly above, which could lead one to think that it's just routine coverage about funding. It certainly is not. The article provides information about the company's focus, background information, what the company's software does, and more.




 * Nominator's analysis of listed sources; these are still essentially PR attempts as I noted with my said nomination; the newest added one, the 2013 TechCrunch article is essentially a how-to guide since it actually goes to specifications to show what the item is, how it works and how it looks; that's basically a sales pitch, especially to seek and obtain clients and investors, even in the fact the "article" itself contains an image of how the item works. I'll note the following: "The customer engagement tool is offered at no extra cost to Appboy users. The company prices its service on a freemium model where it’s free up to 10,000 monthly users, then tiered afterwards. Appboy doesn’t disclose exact user numbers, but says that it has hundreds of developers using the new product, representing millions of mobile users. Several big-name clients will be revealed in a few weeks, Ghermezian notes." which is essentially the company advertising itself, showing the specifications about the said item, the "article" the closes by mentioning their funding activities, again something only a company wanting PR would mention. The next one, Mashable's "article" begins with not only a photo of what it looks like but then flashy words like "New look and feel" which is something someone would only mention if they wanted to find clients (from the article: "The customer engagement tool is offered at no extra cost to Appboy users. The company prices its service on a freemium model where it’s free up to 10,000 monthly users, then tiered afterwards. Appboy doesn’t disclose exact user numbers, but says that it has hundreds of developers using the new product, representing millions of mobile users. Several big-name clients will be revealed in a few weeks, Ghermezian notes....Appboy [now has an update]), not a genuine journalism method. SwisterTwister   talk  03:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – These are bylined news articles that provide significant coverage, written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources which adhere to journalistic objectivity. The sources are not press releases, nor are they public relations content. Per this coverage, the topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I easily found two very strong sources, Wall Street Journal and Fortune. As to the nominator's argument that "the company themselves simply likely motivated the supposed 'news' themselves", we have no way of knowing what motivates journalists or media outlets to write about things. We only have our WP:RS policy. Fortune and WSJ are both reliable and provide non-trivial coverage, therefore, this company meets the standard of WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The comment is not fully noting all of my concerns listed here, which are also PR concerns, something that cannot simply be tossed aside. The Fortune link they list, I specifically and clearly examined and noted the concerns; what motivates journalists, especially ones looking for an easy and simple task, are the ones that are searching for companies so they can boost their connections and ultimately, their future jobs; that's what journalism can be like, especially when it comes to companies, where they are eager to especially find clients and investors, hence the overspecifications about the company's services and activites; examining this WallStreetJournal link above, it not only begins with listing the company's funding (attempts only to find clients and investors, granted), but it then says "Venture investors are hot on the space, having backed more than a dozen such startups in recent years, including Kahuna Inc., Urban Airship Inc., Swrve Inc., Localytics Inc. and Leanplum Inc." (which are simpy attempts to shoehorn name-connections, they serve no actual relevance or substance to the article itself), "“There was lots of inbound interest so we didn’t do a roadshow. Investors found us and we picked three to entertain,” said Mr. Ghermezian. He added that he initially sought to raise $10 million and could have easily raised $25 million" is then another attempt at wooing viewers, clients and investors, to actually then state what number of investors they "entertained" and then ultimately settled with. The next one is : "The 50-person company aims to double head count during the next year or so and focus mainly on sales and marketing. Appboy’s technology, which also allows clients to engage users via app push notifications, in app messaging or other means, will be rolled out to increasingly large enterprise users, according to the company plan" Not only was this simply supplied by the company itself, it actually then goes to specifics what their plans and activities are, the audience that targets are again clients and investors. The next information then, unsurprisingly, lists other companies who are apparently clients, and what their information is. None of that is substance. Given my specified analysis with these concerns, you cannot honestly then say that's "in-depth and significant coverage". SwisterTwister   talk  04:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and I don't think the proffered sources are evidence of depth - all of this is churnalism at best - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because it passes WP:CORP as clearly shown by the references already cited in this discussion.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet my comments and analysis has clearly stated what and why the concerns exist, simply stating that the sources "are enough" is not enough to simply the article. SwisterTwister   talk  19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your badgering is bordering on disruption. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and view it as a WP:BLUDGEON issue. When participating at AFD, there is no requirement to respond to or satisfy every comment/objection made by other editors. In fact, it would be impossible to do so--editors acting in good faith can and will often disagree, even after everyone has made their best arguments. Editors are not entitled to point-by-point rebuttals of their own analysis. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, sources listed above clearly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No comment on the trend in journalism quality in general.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. ad promotional and borderline notable. If there is anything clear about the sources is that the would not have been written except for interest in the social connections of the proprietor. This is the sort of human interest coverage that does not provide notability ofa person;'s enterprises, and is even pretty dubious for information on their own notability. The NYT article is a fairly good explanation of that; far from proving the notability of the company, it disproves it.  The others are either publicity or just mentions or other routine coverage.  Including this sort of content is adding  WP to the other organs of publicity. However, we're an encyclopedia. Even if the firm were notable, the articles should bedeleted for promotionalism,which is an even stronger reason that borderline notability .  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC).
 * I was asked on my talk pa to explain further: The material in that article shows the company is not yet notable. Sometimes a newspaper -- even a very good newspaper -- covers something because of some human interest  hook, or because it's a typical example--as, to take an example, the instances selected for coverage in the articles in the NYT Neediest Cases Fund drive.  Such coverage is not notability. Here, it overs the firm, and the coverage is directed to saying how completely un-notable the company is, except for the human interest in its founder, along with similar insignificant companies serving similarly  as  hobbies by wealthy young people.  The only meaning of notability in a WP context is what is suitable to  be in the encyclopedia. If there's coverage in good sources showing it is not suitable, then it is not notable., just as much as if there were no coverage at all .  The GNG is a general rule, but has to be used with judgment about what is actually in the source.  DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the NYT article, and you've almost convinced me, except the WSJ and Fortune articles are about Appboy and only Appboy. (I'm old and am not as sure about Techcrunch helping to establish notability.)  I have long felt that GNG is overused and applies absent critical thinking, but this may be a case where GNG applies.  I'm listening.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here has tried to use the NYT source as a way to establish notability. I added the source to the article recently because it provided some background information on the company that filled in some gaps on the organization's history. I don't think the source establishes GNG because it's fairly trivial coverage. I think it's the Fortune and WSJ sources that do that. But as far as I'm aware every source in an article doesn't have to provide WP:SIGCOV--it just needs to verify the content it is intended to verify in an article. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable.
 * The WSJ article is titled "Appboy Raises $15 Million to Help Businesses Improve Mobile Marketing" indicating that it's an up and coming company. Further, much of the content is based on what the founder was telling the reporter; the tone is fluffy.
 * Fortune article is also about the investment, entitled: "This Startup Helps Marketers Optimize Mobile Outreach". Likewise, it's based on the interview with the founder.
 * This does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest is run-of-the-mill, routine coverage of funding etc in TechCrunch and VentureBeat as would be expected with a VC-backed company. An unremarkable startup going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Run-of-the-mill is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The source examples I provided demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 13:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See also: WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America1000 14:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWCOMPANY is an essay, not a guideline or policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Topic notability on Wikipedia is not correlated with the age of any topic or subject. North America1000 15:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources presented are clearly problematic. Venturebeat, Mashable, TechCunch are all techblogs and they run almost any small news about tech companies. The reason why these are considered run-of-the-mill routine coverage is actually firmly grounded in a policy named WP:NOTDIR.(Using these sources for demonstrating notability would result in every little company would become notable enough for inclusion). The reason for using high quality sources, particularly mainstream media, is to ensure that the world at large has taken an interest in the subject, without any prodding or incentive. Discounting these techblogs, we only have 2 reliable sources
 * The "WSJ article" is a . The blogs are not subject to the same editorial checks and it is very easy to publish articles here. In addition to that it essentially reports a funding news (along with a quote by the CEO).
 * The Fortune article literally used a quote by the founder as a story source. This doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND which states other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself cannot be used to support notability.
 * None of the above 2 help to fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, the news about the company is essentially all about funding. I don't see any solid news or even a claim of significance here. Honestly, this is just WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:NEWSBLOG. North America1000 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. All the more reasons not to use it for notability purposes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice how I didn't include the WSJ source in my list of sources in my !vote above. What about all of the other sources I posted? Are they all no good, as some sort of default? (WP:ALLOFTHESOURCESAREWRONG); if some sources are problematic, then all of them are? Sorry, but this comes across as cherry picking selectively, and then dismissing all others, per "Venturebeat, Mashable, TechCunch are all techblogs". These websites are not blogs, they are news websites. For more information, see TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Mashable. Conversely, for information about what constitutes a blog, see Blog. North America1000 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Venturebeat, Mashable and TechCrunch are called "tech blogs". And I'm not the one who made up this term, it is a very commonly used term in the media. Have a look:
 * Venturebeat: ""- from NYTimes, ""- from Bloomberg
 * TechCrunch: ""- from Bloomberg, "", ""- from Bloomberg- from NYTimes
 * Mashable: ""- from Bloomberg, ""- from WashingtonPost (Mashable though is more of a social media news aggregator/clickbait site as opposed to a dedicated tech blog)
 * Gizmodo: ""- from WashingtonPost, ""- fron NYTimes
 * The journalistic model of these tech blogs is inverted: publish first and verify/correct/retract later if needed. The problem however isn't so much about verifiability as it is about the fact that they publish literally just about anything. That reduces the value of the source and renders it useless for notability. It would be like using inclusion in a directory as a proof of notability and this goes against our policy WP:NOTDIR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by and.

TechCrunch

TechCrunch is a reliable source. It has editorial oversight:Mike Butcher is an Editor At Large at TechCrunch.Alexia Tsotsis is the co-editor of TechCrunch.Greg Kumparak is an editor at TechCrunch.Josh Constine is an Editor At Large at TechCrunch.John Biggs is the East Coast Editor for TechCrunch.</ol> From Identifying reliable sources: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." TechCrunch publishes corrections:<ol><li>From https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/27/good-eggs-raises-15-million-to-expand-across-the-u-s/: "Corrections & clarifications: Rob Spiro is an advisor to Good Eggs but not a chairman with the company as previously stated. Bentley Hall held several senior executive roles at Plum Organics prior to joining Good Eggs."</li><li>From https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/01/romulus-capital-closes-75-million-fund-to-back-early-stage-tech-startups/: "Corrections & clarifications: Gupta, Romulus Capital’s founder, is an MIT graduate. Chheda went to Yale and joined him at Romulus Capital almost four years after Gupta began investing."</li></ol>

VentureBeat

http://venturebeat.com/team/ lists an Editor in Chief and a News Editor. VentureBeat publishes corrections and clarifications:<ol><li>From http://venturebeat.com/2009/09/14/tc50-need-someone-to-mow-your-lawn-redbeacon-create-a-market-for-local-services/: "Updated with correction ... Co-founder Ethan Anderson emailed me with a few corrections and clarifications:"</li></ol> VentureBeat has an ethics statement at http://venturebeat.com/ethics-statement/ with quotes like: "<ol><li>Never plagiarize. Use your own words and make quotes clear.</li><li>Check facts and report them fairly.</li><li>Tell your editor about all associations, activities, and investments that might compromise your integrity or damage your credibility. Should an unavoidable conflict of interest arise, the story will be either reassigned to a different writer or the conflict will be disclosed to the public.</li><li>Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.</li></ol>"

Commentary

It is true that TechCrunch and VentureBeat are tech blogs. But they are tech blogs that have editorial oversight, fact-checking, corrections and clarifications publishing, meaning they pass Identifying reliable sources. Regarding "the fact that they publish literally just about anything", there is no evidence that they do that. They do not have the resources to publish "anything", so like all news organizations, they must be selective in editorially what is worth reporting and publishing. I reviewed the article and do not consider it promotional after the good work by Northamerica1000 and Safehaven86. The sources provide extensive discussion of the company's history and products. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Appboy to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I view tech blogs as much different than common blogs, particularly when they have sufficient editorial oversight. I also agree that the sources I have listed above are all reliable sources. North America1000 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - To ensure these comments were acknowledged and analyzed, I will note this is becoming a filibuster in that walls of content about whose job is who, yet no one above actually acknowledged the extensive concerns stated each and all vote. Therefore, sinply congratulating one side of their searches and yet not acknowledged the sincere concerns of the other, explains everything by itself. No one has even talked about the analyses above yet, to still say "but there's sources" bears no similar convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Of note is that the article has been heavily copy edited to address promotional tone (see its Revision history). The article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America1000 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note -- I trimmed the article some more, to remove intricate detail and potentially unverifiable claims by the company, such as "routine personnel announcement and nn individuals, amounting to intricate detail". The article currently stands at:


 * Appboy Inc. is a mobile marketing company based in New York City. It develops customer relationship management and mobile marketing automation software that businesses use to manage their mobile applications. The company is headquartered in New York, New York, with additional offices in San Francisco, California and London.


 * Appboy was founded in 2011 by Mark Ghermezian with $3 million raised from family and other investors. The company received $7.6 million in Series A funding in 2013 and $15 million in Series B funding in October 2014. In May 2016, Appboy closed a $20 million Series C funding round, bringing the company's total funding to $42.5 million.


 * This is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. It could be further trimmed to reduce the intricate detail on the dates and amounts of the funding rounds, as this is intricate detail unlikely to be helpful to the general readers. This is essentially A7 material at this time, per available sources. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on unremarkable companies, and it does not need another one, as the sole purpose for this page to exist is to promote the company and highlight its ability to raise money from investors. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an investment prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. Ghermezian left his job in the energy industry and raised $3 million from family and other investors in order to start the company. – this is encyclopedic information about the history of the company's founding. That same year, Bill Magnuson and Jon Hyman joined the company as co-founders. – the company's co-founders are not "routine personnel announcement[s]".  Appboy manages mobile applications for Tinder, Domino's Pizza, Urban Outfitters, and SoundCloud. Appboy’s software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month between 420 million users.   – this is verified by the Fortune article. "[P]otentially unverifiable claims by the company which was private" is insufficient reason to delete this material when it's supported by a reliable source that considers the material accurate.  The company received $7.6 million in Series A funding in November 2013 (from Icon Ventures, Michael Lazerow, Blumberg Capital, Accelerator Ventures, Bullpen Capital and Triple Five Group) and $15 million in Series B funding in October 2014 (from InterWest Partners, Icon Ventures, Blumberg Capital, Triple Five Group and IDG Ventures). – information about who funded the company is encyclopedic information and is part of the company's history. It should not be removed.  Cunard (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the quote from Fortune is "Appboy’s software processes roughly 2 billion messages per month, sent to more than 420 million active users, according to the company." That's exactly why this article should be deleted, as it appears that this type of editing is what allows Wikipedia to be used for promotional purposes. With the revert above, Wikipedia's voice is now used to substantiate the claim by the company. Such uncritical editing is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your concern with that sentence. I have added a clarification to the text. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Appboy told Fortune in June 2016 that its software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month..." falls under WP:NOTNEWS and is not encyclopedic content. Instead, Wikipedia's is used to substantiate company claims. This, and other reverts above, are adding indiscriminate WP:INFO to the encyclopedia, parroting what news sources out there say. I am concerned that the application of this model would lead Wikipedia editors to become automatons without any critical thinking or capacity to evaluate sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That content uses Citing sources to discuss the volume of messages Appboy processes, which is encyclopedic information. I consider reputable news organizations to be reliable sources unless presented with evidence otherwise. No evidence has been presented here to demonstrate that these sources are publishing PR. Fortune considered the material from the company to be due weight in their article. I consider that same material to be due weight for the Wikipedia article because I consider the volume of messages Appboy processes to be encyclopedic information. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the content removal edits (which Cunard restored) removed a source from the article that demonstrates notability (diff, here's the source). In the interest of fairness, when removing content from articles while topic notability is being discussed at AfD, please consider at least moving the sources to a Further reading section. Sometimes people base their assessments of notability only based upon the state of sourcing in articles, rather than all available sources. North America1000 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, I looked at the sources while editing. This particular source (TechCrunch: appboy-raises-a-cool-million-to-let-app-developers-better-engage-and-understand-their-user-base) does not strike me as RS for the purpose of establishing notability. This is coverage in a tech blog that routinely covers funding news for VC backed tech startups. Requirements for source that establish notability are more stringent than for mere content, and this one falls short of the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the one source being claimed as notability-causing is actually simply company PR in that the article says something only the company would itself : "This cool $1million will better engage and understand the clients" .... None of that can be taken seriously if it's that blatant and certainly nothing some non-company person would say. As it is, that one article contains several and several other sentences listed the company's own thoughts and plans which of course is not independent since it's coming from the company itself. Another classic part that we've recently seen in established PR pieces, "how exactly is AppBoy looking to improve the discovery of apps, up intelligence on users, and encourage engagement?" Basically saying "Sure, sure, but how is money being made?!" None of that is what an honest journalist would say, and it oozes with the obvious company-supplied information, because the news media source could not care at all about that company, but it certainly will if there was money involved and invested with supplying PR as a quid-pro-quo for PR-for-PR for each of them. The worst part of it is that the last half paragraphs or so actually go to specifics, stating how the company works and how it can be used, before finishing with "For information, go to the company website to learn about it!" If that's not PR, I'm not sure what it is, especially since it's simply an artful method of saying "Hey, this information is coming from the website itself, but let's put it into our own words since that works!" Churnalism is what that is called since, it was injected with company PR from A to Z. SwisterTwister   talk  03:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on independent of tech blogs There is absolutely no proof that sources like TechCrunch and VentureBeat or their writers are independent of the organisations they write about. Most tech blogs writers tend to be affiliated to companies and this a tech blog usually should not be considered as an independent source. (Note that having an editor =/= independent source). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading arguments of both sides in this rather heated discussion, I choose keep - there are many sources (I admit some of them weak). At least for me this is enough to estabilish notability of this topic. Pavlor (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment - he only difference is that the Delete votes have staunchly and clearly stated the concerns whereas the Keep votes have either chosen not to or simply state that it's somehow enough. Stating itself "some of them weak" yet not state which ones, causes questions in itself, especially since this would help, given the stated and extensive examinations and analyses above. SwisterTwister   talk  05:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don´t think so. Both sides repeat (again and again) their arguments why this particular source is or is not reliable. I watched this AfD long enough to make my opinion. Maybe my standards for keep are (much) lower than yours. Side note: I see some sources were summarily dismissed by the delete side of this AfD. Is this general problem of said pages or only some articles aren´t reliable (eg. these AppBoy)? I ask, because providing references from such websites (even in good faith) may be waste of time. Are there some websites you would without hesitation describe as reliable (for purposes of computing/software articles)? I admit, if I´m looking for sources, I rather use paper magazines, which is not that hard for topic of my interest - old computers... Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedic value. Non-notable company. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:21, 4 October 2016 (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.