Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hortonworks


 * 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. (non-admin closure) f  eminist  09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hortonworks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

= Nothing for confirmed independent notability and substance given this mirrors what they would advertise to clients and that alone sufficient is for deletion, but also the history showing dozens and dozens of numerous accounts, a majority presumably company accounts which would also violate our policies; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and there's no exceptions for businesses, especially given all sources here are simply published or republished business announcements, including the supposedly best major ones. Searches also mirrored this by showing pages and pages of published and republished business announcements and press releases, including all of them being labeled. Take the current spurces:
 * 1 is their own website
 * 2 is a business announcement
 * 3 is same
 * 4 is same
 * 5 is a company profile
 * 6 is same
 * 7 is business announcement
 * 8 is same
 * 9 is same
 * 10 is a tech blog
 * 11 is business announcement
 * 12 is same, from a known PR host
 * 13 is clearly labeled press release
 * 14 is same
 * 15 and 16 are mirroring same
 * 17 is same
 * 18 is same as 5-6
 * 19 to 25 are all tech blog announcements, sharing consistency
 * 26 is company website
 * 27 is announcement
 * That's exactly what searches found SwisterTwister   talk  02:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: actually when I click this link one of the first results I get is an article called "Hortonworks brakes on breaking even, continues to burn cash"... That doesn't sound like PR or advertisement to me. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am founding hundreds of reliable, independent sources in dozens of languages about how this company 1. is a spinoff of Yahoo 2. is one of the leaders in its domain 3. had an IPO 4. has a business model that not everybody is convinced about. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The second link is simply a mirror of what I showed above in the analysis. None of it weighs any differently to what our policies state which is WP:Wikipedia is not advertising. Our policy WP:NOT also repeatedly says "Articles must not be copyedited or rearranged when either the article is still promotional or when there is not the sufficient improvements needed in policy"; because there hasn't been hopeful signs of actual improvements, beyond a few rewording (for example, "The company enjoys servicing its customers" cannot be reworded as it's still PR, and PR is exactly what this article is), this any and all advertising is removed. Tp quote WP:CORPDEPTH exactly: except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[3] the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. Because the sources are still largely supported by PR either published or republished, it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister  talk  23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the company has a huge amount of press, much of which is from their large IPO (and then burning through much of the cash due to lack of earnings) and their work with Microsoft Azure etc. The article needs some work to source from other than company web site, but this is not nearly as bad as most "two kids and an app" articles. W Nowicki (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Such as which ones? And are they policy-backed? SwisterTwister   talk  23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Concerns with tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - The first link is to GoogleBooks which consists of nothing but clear guides and the second page shows this, violating the applicable WP:CORPDEPTH as it states "guides, simple listings and other company information cannot be used for notability", take:
 * 1st page shows it
 * 2 is same
 * 3 is same
 * 4 is same


 * 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.