Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heap (company)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Heap (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small internet company, not yet notable. References are just announcements about funding and promotional interviews/reviews. .  DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Thanks for bringing this to my attention, DDG.) I believe Heap is significantly notable to meet Wikipedia's requirements based on the references cited. I will focus on a point of contrast worthy of discussion: There are hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of companies of lesser qualification when judged on the criteria of major industry news coverage, notable customers, volume of customer adoption, technological significance, and industry awards that have merited Wiki articles that remain uncontested after years or successfully won their deletion contests. Some quickly skimmed related companies include Looker, Highcharts, Kaggle, Propstack, Medio, Segment and Metafor Software. (To browse a list of lesser-Wiki-qualified companies in the same business categories, see Category:Data analysis software, Category:Business intelligence companies, Category:Analytics companies to start.) My conclusion is that deeming this Heap article as unqualified for inclusion today is 1) by-the-book counter to Wiki's inclusion requirements (I will leave it to others to debate the minutiae if they feel compelled to delete this entry[1]) and 2) raising the bar so high that it invalidates the Wikipedia entries of countless technology companies, many of which are for companies that are similarly as well-known and relevant in the software technology industry as Heap. Which is to say most people in this industry know of these companies or work with them in some way. [1] If you proceed with an argument for delete, given the quality of references for this entry and the state of similar entries on Wikipedia, I think it is imperative a full analysis of the insufficiency of Heap and its references is detailed, and that it is also performed for many of the other companies listed above so that a holistic comparison can ensue. The references cited in this article focus largely on Heap as their subject (if not exclusively) and are from reputable news publications in their industry. Heap also has sufficient merit on the criteria listed above (adoption, awards, etc.) User:GDWin (talk) 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I meant to comment sooner, it's quite clear this is a trivial and unconvincing article regardless of what other people think, because our established notability policies explicitly state removal is allowed, and it's a non-negotiable policy. It's quite simple here so there's no need to overwork ourselves when it's clear this is only a business listing. SwisterTwister   talk  18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a notability policy, much less a "non-negotiable policy" -- Green  C  23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wut? Timothy Joseph Wood  18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you link to Wikipedia's policy on notability? We have policies, and we have guidelines. It raises a red flag when someone argues a guideline is "non-negotiable" as reason for deletion. --  Green  C  18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it's somewhere in this area. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the community wants to delete it they can, regardless of notability - it's just a guideline. I've seen it happen many times. If it was policy it would be different. It's not pedantry, the words mean something. -- Green  C  19:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Response to SwisterTwister: "trivial and unconvincing article regardless of what other people think" is a dismissive non-response. Please detail what's trivial and unconvincing about the article as compared to the guidelines for inclusion and relative to other articles that have surpassed deletion contests. User:GDWin (talk) 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - (Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion, GDWin). I have to agree with the nominator. In the article, the first source is a self-published one (by Heap Analytics). The NBC News source doesn't even mention Heap at all. The other sources (Forbes and TechCrunch) are merely trivial coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH. I couldn't find much reliable sources by searching. No depth of coverage. - The   Magnificentist  18:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (I'm not going to !vote, since I was notified of this discussion by GDWin, who already has.) Having poked around a bit online, this is a bit complicated by the exceedingly generic name of the company. However, I would say that the current article includes sourcing to Forbes, which is not obvious since the cite template was only partially completed. Looking at the source, it's pretty in depth coverage, and Forbes is about as WP:RS as coverage of mid-sized companies gets. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This would be considered "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and this as passing mention. - The   Magnificentist  18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And neither of those were the Forbes article I was talking about. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As for policy, the actual policy is the WP IS AN ENCYLOPEDIA< NOTDIRECTORY and NOTPROMOTION. The notability guidelines are not policy, and can be ignored if there is a consensus to do in any given case;;that's intrinsic to any guideline, and this particular one even says so specifically at the top, so I read it to encourage using whatever standards consensus wants to apply. What is actually necessary to show in any given article is why the subject belongs in a encyclopedia, rather than a directory. There's no such information here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there is no point making comparisons between different articles There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove.  The least we can do is not add to them.  There;'s about a 10% error rate (in both directions at afd)--you will not even find it stated that WP even tries for consistency.
 * Delete - not yet notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)