Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cielo24


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cielo24

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion for non notable company bombarded with primary sources, passing mentions, non mentions and PR. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I would state that searchable captions are notable. Video have only been searchable or indexed through the advancement in indexing and transcription technology that Cielo24 and companies like 3PlayMedia have helped create.
 * Also the passing references are enough as they are only used to show that notable organizations such as BrightCove, Courseera, Kaltura have used Cielo24.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And another thing, while doing research I found Vocapia Research to be the most similar organization to Cielo24. I confidently feel I wrote a page that is exponentially better.
 * If my writing is to advertising than I would request a more experienced Wikipedian to schedule a session with me and help me with my writing skills.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Well-meaning company in socially-conscious field is not notable yet. General references about the service area do not confer N to every company in that area. Press releases about funding do not confer notability; all companies need capital. WP:CORP A list of possibly notable partners does not show N because N is not inheirited.  Furthermore, the partner's statements are not independent.  Some of the statements are just passing mention: "Partners include cielo24, VoiceBase, Amara, 3Play Media and Dotsub, all available in the Kaltura Exchange marketplace." The article does not provide RSs that cover the company and show its significance. A google search turns up partners and APIs, but I didn't see any independent hits in the first fifty. Glrx (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have stated the passing references are only used to show that Cielo24 does in fact provide them their services. It is sufficient. They list Cielo24 as a 3rd party service provider. Further more the dedicated article by EdSurge validates all of those passing references in significant detail.
 * What agitates me the most is that inferior articles in the same field seem to be doing fine:
 * Vocapia Research
 * VoiceBox Technologies
 * Yap (company)
 * My article has more secondary references then all of these articles put together.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete An IT start-up with less than 50 employees that has been trading for less than three years. For this to be notable, it would require a significant and substantial amount of coverage beyond industry publications. This is not the case. In fact, it pretty comprehensively fails WP:CORP. Analysis of references:
 * 1. Doesn't mention the company at all
 * 2. Article written by a company employee and hosted on company website
 * 3. and 4. Company directory listings written by the company
 * 5. Press release-based article about the company's latest round of venture capital funding, on EdSurge, an IT industry news website
 * 6., 7., 8., 9. Company descriptions on the websites/press releases of two of their commercial partners
 * 10. The company's own website
 * 11. The website of another one of their customers: "Cielo24 has offered to give you 30 minutes of free transcription services to test out their platform"
 * 12. A university site which lists the captioning services available to their students
 * 13. The company's own website
 * 14., 15. Two more university sites which list the captioning services available to their students
 * There is simply not enough for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Parts of this page are copied from various sources making it a copyright issue too.  . duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is some copy-pasting, particularly the first of your links from which a 50 word chunk has been taken. However, that site's content licensing is compatible with CC-BY-SA, so it isn't copyvio. In any case, even if there were some copyvio, it could be remedied by re-writing, and in itself isn't a reason to delete. Far more compelling, and what should be the focus here, is the comprehensive failure to meet the criteria at WP:CORP. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good spotting on the first one, just lacking attribution. I missed that. The copying does in part explain why the article reads as so promotional. Copying is also becoming increasingly clear that it's the norm for the articles creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it accounts for why it is so overtly promotional, that and the effort required to make a non-notable company sound notable. But in my view, articles about companies without significant independent coverage are inherently promotional, no matter how "neutrally" they're written. Such articles are simply using Wikipedia to legitimize and circulate the company's website content and press releases and those of its commercial partners. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 8 March 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.