Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datameer


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Datameer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear advertising since both the information and sources confirm it's all either published or republished advertising including the supposedly best ones, which are then labeled as their "PR business section"; putting aside the obvious concerns, the article still overall has nothing convincing in our policies and the history shows clear signs of company involvements; when an article consistently stays an advertisement and is influenced by clear PR people, it's enough for any deletion. Source analysis: 14 is same as 10  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datameer for the extensive rationale for the article's retention at this deletion discussion's talk page.
 * 1 is a business profile
 * 2 is again
 * 3 is a mere announcement
 * 4 is a tech-focused blog
 * 5 is a clearly labeled press release
 * 6 is is another announcement
 * 7 is same
 * 8 is a funding business announcement
 * 9 is is another tech-focused announcement
 * 10 is a funding announcement in a PR republisher
 * 11 is same, but this time republished elsewhere
 * 12 is same as 10
 * 13 is same as 10
 * Now, to cover searches, see where I found that:
 * first 10 are clear announcements and mentions
 * next 10 is same
 * next 10 is same
 * next 10 is same
 * So there's nothing to satisfy the 2 main factors here, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT which both state republished business announcements and PR are unacceptable and will not help for notability. WP:NOT then also states we're not a business webhost which the past SPAs suggest they used us as a clear one, see SPA 1, SPA 2, SPA 3, SPA 4, SPA 5, SPA 6, SPA 7 and that's also not counting the handful of IPs involved. Considering this, the article then contains the natural signs of it since the focused information all involves itself in the company's own published and republished words, not genuine independent coverage of it. SwisterTwister   talk  19:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - see my rationale on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Datameer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croakingtoad (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete   the only really acceptable source is no.4, from the   New York Times BITS section, which sometimes is a little more prone to making an article for a still not notable company than the main part of the newspaper. No. 11 is also from the NYT, but its a mere announcement.   Substantial articles from the NYT go to show notability, but not announcements even if published there. The other material is either press releases or mentions. I am quite concerned also at the attempts to justify the new references all of which are mentions.  This is enough to indicate that the editor responsible should avoid the article, as having too much COI  to tell good references from bad.   DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Have to lean this way, as a bit too soon. They got some money and hired a marketing person, but not really notable yet in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (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.