Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeFutures


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

CodeFutures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

However I suggest primary sources are sufficient for deciding policy questions, such as article deletion since: – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * June 3, 2015 AGILDATA TO ADVANCE STREAMING BIG DATA announces at least a name change if not a full reoragnization.
 * October 22, 2015 AGILDATA IS THE NEW CODEFUTURES! says in part:
 * Since the CodeFutures name will no longer be in use, we have shut down the www.codefutures.com website.
 * dbShards.com will continue to be used as a product portal for dbShards ongoing.
 * www.AgilData.com will be our primary website.
 * We have also made some changes to our product roadmap. We will be focusing primarily on the AgilData platform which will include dbShards as part of our mission to develop industry leading data infrastructure solutions. However, Firestorm and MapDB are no longer supported (emphasis added).
 * As primary sources, they are insufficient as references.
 * 1) The current name unwanted by the owner.
 * 2) This article is outdated with 2/3 content now obsolete.
 * 3) Successor organization notoriety possibly insufficient.
 * 4) All of the above raising Wikipedia inclusion suitability.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move to AgilData. The article sites multiple reliable independent sources talking about the subject, establishing notability under WP:GNG.  Once notability is established, we don't delete articles because they're now out-of-date, we fix them.  Yes, the company has changed its name.  No problem.  Move the article to the new name and update the content.  Problem solved.  Msnicki (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete actually as none of this suggests solid notability and my searches found nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, a stub for nine years with three references counting two ZDnet as one: unclear notability. It would be good enough for a fresh stub, but this is apparently dead. – Be..anyone &#x1F4A9;  03:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Okay, I'm changing my !vote.  Others' arguments and another look at the evidence have persuaded me that the topic fails WP:GNG.  Msnicki (talk) 05:03, 14 April 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.