Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clusterpoint


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Clusterpoint

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has had a sourcing banner on it since 2015. All the sources in the article seem to be primary or trivial coverage. Also, nothing comes up in a BEFORE that I could find (so it fails notability per NCORP) and the article has mainly been edited by an IP user that might have a COI. Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: "Book Fundamentals of Software Startups: Essential Engineering and Business Aspects" seems not found on BEFORE so I'm voting keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird, it doesn't come up for me when I do a Google Book search of "Clusterpoint." Even when searching for the book title with the companies name. Do you have a link to where the company is mentioned in the book, know the page numbers, or can you at least say how in-depth the coverage of it is? One sources doesn't necessarily make it notable anyway, but i'd still like to know, so the details can be added to the article if it is kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. I see it comes up when clicking the link in the AfD but I guess it doesn't when just searching for it with the search bar for some reason. Interesting. That said, it seems most of what is covered in the book could be considered trivial and not work for notability by WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats the normal answer when the nom. hasn't found something. It's far from trivial and I'm standing by keep.  On top of this it is the project not the company which is of importance.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've been here a while and haven't heard anyone say that doing a search on Google books gets different results then clicking the AfD banner does, but whatever you say. You know you can easily go to Google Books and do a search for Clusterpoint to confirm that nothing comes up right? It would be a lot better then accusing some random person on the internet of being a lier. I didn't say you should change your vote anyway. So, nice job treating me like a give a crap about something I don't. I could really care less how you vote. I was simply pointing out something I found interesting. Also, I'm not sure what your talking about with the whole "the project is important" thing, but as you should know notability isn't inherited or based on your personal opinion of "importance." Again though, I could really care less how you vote. If it's based on bad logic that doesn't follow the guidelines the closing admin will likely weed it out. If not though, bad votes and articles being kept because of them are pretty run of the mill anyway. So however people vote or whatever happens its no sweat off my back. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, a lot of people probably say sources are trivial because often times they are. "keep people" like to throw out whatever random crap source they can because they think will persude the next person to vote keep without them looking into the quality of the source. People say a source is trivial when it is so other people will look into it instead of just automatically voting keep "because sourcing." I'm pretty no one is making those comments because they think the person providing the bad source will change their vote. No one does. Nor should they. The dice fall where they fall. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The book Fundamentals of Software Startups contains an in-depth case study on "The Rise and Fall of a Database-as-a-Service Latvian Unicorn" where the abstract says the the company collapsed and was forced to file for insolvency due to liquidity reasons in 2017. None of this information is in the article. Plus, the website is still up and the company appears to be alive (and well?). The book acknowledges that one of the co-authors is an ex-employee of the company but the book contains a lot of references and is obviously not relying on inside information and therefore contains Independent Content. I'm leaning towards Keep based on the book and on the Gartner profile when the company was selected as a Cool Vendor.  HighKing++ 18:22, 18 May 2020 (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.