Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean (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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Promotional article on borderline notable company. Almost every reference is a mere announcement, even the NYTimes. The others are promotion, including the Forbes "interview" where the interviewer simply gave the proprietor the opportunity to say whatever he wanted to. .  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This was already nominated for deletion and was endorsed. The article could use a clean-up since the last time I checked, but there is genuine information here, like the fact that FreeBSD is offered. The point of starting the article was to document resources this company offers. Compared to, say, random  television  shows, this company is doing quite a bit more for the world. I'm not even an active customer, but I gotta say, even as a public sector medical researcher, I find the hostility toward for-profit companies a little off-putting, especially when compared to the more obviously direct bio articles, for example, Survivin. Deleting this article does me as much disservice as deleting the article on  cIAP2. I'm pretty sure more people think about DigitalOcean than about  TAZ. Biotech involves bio, but it also involves tech. Where' the balance? Niels Olson (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It should stay, with lots of new refs added. "Borderline notability"? Did you even try searching Google News for DigitalOcean? It is the focus of at least 50 articles and mentioned in dozens more. Do your research before claiming a famous company is "borderline non-notable". Wonderfl (reply) 05:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there are enough "international or national" "multiple independent sources" cited per WP:CORPDEPTH to establish notability. Rwendland (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure but perhaps delete for now as there's not as much coverage as there could be. As I'm not entirely sure about one side or the other, notifying past editors and  and past AfD commenters, ,  and .  SwisterTwister   talk  23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure either. At a glance, it seems like a keep, but many of the sources are much, much flimsier than they first appear. Effort towards cleanup here might also benefit Libscore, which is closely related and has similar problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. (I participated in a related DRV at Deletion review/Log/2014 April 18.)    </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DigitalOcean to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Add a couple more to your list; Gartner has given praise to DigitalOcean (http://blogs.gartner.com/lydia_leong/2014/07/28/aws-2q14-and-why-the-sky-is-not-falling/), and ThoughtWorks included them on three Technology Radars (https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/platforms/digitalocean). It'd be nice if the nominator would have done some WP:BEFORE legwork. riffic (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cunard hit it out of the park. Even if some sources are flimsy, the WSJ, NYT and Register articles do it for me. BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because, are you f***ing serious? They've undergone a few series funding rounds and had PLENTY of press each time its happened. Very notable at this point. riffic (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's sources. clpo13(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep notability has been clearly established. The nominator states that the reliable sources are merely promotion -- this appears to be an opinion that articles in the business press are suspect. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. What this is showing is that we have no consensus on what sort of coverage is sufficient, and what sources are reliable. We need to discuss those things one by one. Are reports of funding/IPO, for example sufficient? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the tech industry, funding events are a common trigger event for coverage of a company. The sources will often use the funding event as a hook for an article about the company. Most of the articles aren't simply about the funding, they include news about the company and its products. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." I agree that trivial mentions of a company's getting funded is routine business. But if sources provide "deep coverage" (which is the case here), then the company is considered notable under the "deep coverage" standard. And in this case, there are numerous sources about the company's history and products that are unrelated to the funding. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep But promotional content should be removed, if not possible then delete. Mirror360 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking vote of sockpuppet per Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete / userify many promo sources, promo content but seems worthy and been around a while. I share DGGs sentiments. It's a choice of what we want WP to be, and whether we keep promo content or have a higher level of protection for promo on WP. This one appears borderline, so I could see it both ways. I'm 100% convinced that a single list (including an outpouring of promo sources - without going through them all, I'm speculating) isn't a good way to decern, but two lists - one discounted promo sources and one not may help. Widefox ; talk 13:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a list or two lists? --Sbwoodside (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (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.