Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delphix (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Delphix
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear and blatant advertisement whose article was also deleted in 2012 where it showed there was nothing to suggest an actual substance and believable article, and that's what we have here once again since none of this actually established both independent coverage and non-PR influences, all of the Forbes focus with PR and unconvincing "business specifics" aside from one who is then actually by a "special business contributor" (clearly PR-influenced), and the others are also then simply advertising or repeating what the company's own advertisements are. My own searches are then simply finding advertising and republished advertising so that's certainly not hopeful. Other things I'll note is (1) the advertising-only account was then linked to another troublesome user, who also involved himself with other advertisements (now deleted) and (2) other new accounts noticeably came and only focused with this one article, so that certainly shows this article is nowhere near being salvageable. SwisterTwister  talk  19:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Google News is providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America1000 22:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing mainly press releases and reprinted press releases - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands per nom. "Keep" opiners seem unable to answer the question: "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I do not see any keep !votes in this AFD yet, just commentary on the legit news reporting in reliable sources with significant coverage. No one is answering your biased and leading question because the sources already refute your vote.   You have provided no evidence of your accusation of non-professionalism of the journalists in question, while another user has provided a good starter list of sources with a description of their methodology in choosing those sources.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Below are some bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America1000 08:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * InfoWorld
 * "Delphix hires anti-PR bloke Silicon Valley Watcher as head of PR". The Register
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * InformationWeek
 * The Register
 * Rewritten press release, article actually about their PR person, blog (WSJ blog are notorious for advertorial placement), rewritten press release, the Reg source may indicate wider notability but it's entirely company-supplied information. Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach? - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are some substantial accusations you've made. Do you have an specific evidence to refute that senior writer Serdar Yegulalp from InfoWorld, technology reporter Rachael King from the Wall Street Journal, executive editor for technical content Curtis Franklin Jr. from InformationWeek, and Chris Mellor from The Register have all supplied significant coverage and commentary on the article topic in reliable sources?  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your continued accusations against the professionalism of the bylined writers noted above would have some more weight if you actually had any evidence beyond your personal opinion of their performance. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" You're just throwing up chaff now - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the AFD closer will be able to clearly see the weakness of your case and your continued wilful accusations against the professionalism of the journalists in question. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam; the articles exists solely to promote the business. With language such as "[Company] increases efficiency" blah blah, this was most likely created by paid editors, which is against policy. The rest of the material is not much better. "Delphix hires anti-PR bloke Silicon Valley Watcher as head of PR" (from the lowest of the low sources The Register) is very telling. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles, as they not only do not provide any value to readers, they are also a time sink both at AfD and trying to maintain their neutrality (see WP:BOGOF). Salt while we are at it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of note is that the article has been created by a sock puppet Special:Contributions/Yanis_ahmed (blocked). K.e.coffman (talk) 13:47, 14 October 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.