Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jambool


 * 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 Merge to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. czar ⨹   16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Jambool

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As I noted in the prod, I believe the coverage is insufficient to pass WP:COMPANY. Some niche coverage of its take over by Google is just a one-event type of coverage; each takeover by Google will generate some interests - enough, likely, to have a list of companies that were bought by Google or such, but not enough, IMHO, to warrant an article about such a company, not by itself. Ping User:SnowFire. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep (I was the one who originally removed the prod). It's definitely borderline, but the right side of the line?  I agree of course it's only notable as a Google acquisition, but said acquisition did in fact give reasonably significant coverage in the press, so a reliably sourced article can be written.  WP:1E is usually something associated with people, not companies to me, and even then it's more a guideline/warning. SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Google acquires companies while they are still in a pupa stage, before they have an identity of their own. (At least, that's how it looks to me.) It isn't clear if the company will continue to exist and develop or if Google will absorb its technology as Google tech. If the company continues to develop and thrives, then it may be worthy of an article. So far, though, companies that Google acquires seem to languish. LaMona (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was so busy pontificating that I forgot to give the real reasons for the delete: most of the sources are tech blogs, and many just repeat bits of press releases. Not significant sources of information. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Merge/redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google, where it is already mentioned. (Piotr, I think that's the list you were looking for in your nomination; as you suspected, it already exists.) IMO the company fails the WP:GNG requirement for a standalone article; most of the references seem to be about Google or Facebook rather than about Jambool. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , thoughts on a merge? czar ⨹   00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * *Support merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the alternative is Delete, sure, merge. However I believe that the current structure of List of mergers and acquisitions by Google isn't particularly suited to *actually* merging the content, more like leaving a redirect behind.  Perhaps there can be some sort of "Minor acquisitions by Google" article some day that goes into more detail than a mere table entry but less detail than a full article, and the content would be best merged there, but that article doesn't currently exist I believe. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there is a logical merge, definitely merge. And, I presume, re-direct. LaMona (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (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.