Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arivale


 * 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. Despite some coverage of some basic facts, I see consensus that the subject is not notable: the arguments by DGG and Carrite are strong. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Arivale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Just another start-up company doing usual business.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Startup covrerage as usual, nothing to make it pass WP:NCOMPANY. It worms my heart, however, to see other people trying to prune this spam. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG from coverage in reliable sources:
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 18:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as the current sourcing seems sufficiently convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per user:Antrocent. I can see that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a perfect example of what she should not cover, and a clear indication we need to formally change the corporate guidelines. Articles that cover only the initial fundingnad the future plans of a company are advertising, and we should not do that. Almost all the sources are blatantly unreliable PR sources: local business journals and sources like Geekwire print articles on everything they get sent, and the PR industry makes sure that the material gets sent to them.  It is not clear to me from the refs if they have actually any working operations yet. What there seem to be are academic trials of a test system. Possibly that academic project should be covered.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times has won a Pulitzer Prize and the Puget Sound Business Journal has been a finalist. These are not unreliable sources. And I guess I fundamentally disagree with your opinions on advertising, this article does not do any more for the company than McDonald's article does for it. The company does have current operations, but if it did not, I would still see no problem. Articles about upcoming films, etc. are allowed. I think that even in funding (especially in unusually large amounts such as $32 million) there is important information that is useful for understanding the world. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and DGG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Little more than run of the mill coverage of a new startup company. Nobody doubts that the Seattle Times is a fine newspaper, only whether a blurb they run about a startup gaining financing is sufficient to pass either GNG or the Special Guidelines for Corporations. Not sufficient, in my view. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 1 December 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.