Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Propria


 * 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 keep. Consensus is the topic is notable via GNG. As a personal editorial, any article that has a "notable clients" section is probably overdue for an overhaul. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Data Propria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Notability is not inherited and while Cambridge Analytica is notable, and some of the ex-exployees may have garnered notability, this company does not appear to be notable in its own right. The references appear to be either based on gossip or overheard public conversations (not reliable sources) or are reporting on the ex-exployees being involved in a new firm. References fail by not having significant coverage. Topic is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not a yellow pages.  HighKing++ 19:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does not fail WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS: it has been the subject of full-length news articles in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.
 * The article does not fail WP:TOOSOON, because it already meets WP:GNG.
 * The article is not promotional in tone; it merely reports an encyclopaedic summary of the available information from the sources mentioned above.
 * The article is not a "yellow pages"-style directory entry: it focuses primarily on the issues relevant to the article subject's notability, and does not provide contact details or detailed employee lists, etc.
 * As such, all of your claimed grounds for deletion seem to be misplaced here, and I hope you will reconsider your position. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject of article has received
 * significant coverage in
 * multiple
 * independent,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * As such, it meets WP:ORGCRIT (and therefore also WP:GNG). As such, it should be kept. Zazpot (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zazpot. I agree that notability is not inherited, but we have WIRED, Ars Technica, The Wall Street Journal and many more trusted sources writing specifically about this company. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2018 (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.