Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDrive Inc.


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IDrive Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a classic Morning277 advertisement. If subsequent editors agree, then the incident should also be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. The article has an obtusely large number of "citations", many of which come from classic Morning277 "sources" (Vatalyst, California Business Journal, etc.). The article's subject is a Silicon Valley computer-related business, also a Morning277 signal, and the page creator has a one-line userpage with a list of contributions that looks like a long list of other possible Morning277 creations/ modifications. I have never nominated a Morning277 article for deletion before, which is why I am not nominating it for speedy deletion or a PROD but rather for AfD discussion so that someone can verify my work. KDS 4444  Talk  20:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of the article's parentage, the subject appears to be notable. The references listed in the article are mostly garbage but there are also significant, full length articles from Mac World, PC Mag and PC World, in addition to TechCrunch (which I find less impressive since I think they often retool press releases and present them as journalism). --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if it's confirmed to have been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, it will be deleted -- albeit with no prejudice against being recreated by a legitimate user. Morning277 (like any other blocked user) is not allowed to submit articles to Wikipedia, period. DS (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's out of my hands and beyond my knowledge. As commenters here, we can only base our opinion on our own review of the article - not on presumptions of sockpuppetry. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, articles created by sockpuppets of a blocked or banned user are eligible for speedy deletion only if no other user has substantially edited the page. In this case the article has substantial edits from two users other than the creator, so it does not qualify. (Or do you allege that User:MurphySoCal and User:173.77.192.39 are also sockpuppets of User:Morning277?  In that case why aren't they listed on Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277?)  —Psychonaut (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the indisputably reputable magazines listed in the previous comment, VentureBeat and Lifehacker are established blogs with a reputation for editorial oversight, so may also count as reliable sources. Promotional aspects of the article can be dealt with through mechanisms other than deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if done by spammers, they are getting better at coming up with articles of almost acceptable quality than many normal users. :-) For what its worth, Calabasas, California is not near Silicon Valley, although I suppose the article could be about a "two kids and an app" company which would not be very notable. Supposedly founded in 1995 in Infobox, but no mention of company funding or size in cited prose. Clearly just a product sheet is not acceptable, even if the only superlative is calling it a flagship, which of course it has nothing to do with. .... update: it appears that to me the most notable aspect of this company is its role in some litigation with patent trolls, but that is not mentioned at all in the article. Apparently there are a bunch of shell companies in a certain Texas district that is kind to lawsuits that go around suing people, and network backup is one of those that has been used against this company. See http://news.priorsmart.com/oasis-research-v-adrive-l35R/ for example. Although probably not a conflict of interest in this, it turns out I developed a network backup product back in 1989, long before any of these patents were filed, so might be at least curious about this. W Nowicki (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:15, 28 August 2013 (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.