Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabooza (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 Delete Despite the valiant efforts to find adequate sourcing for this article, it does not seem to meet the standard of the notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kabooza
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. The "awards" cited in the article appear meaningless and do not provide narrative evaluations. The TechCrunch article is not of sufficient depth. The BBC mention is extremely brief and only in passing. Attempts to locate further significant coverage were fruitless, leaving the ArcticStartup article as the only source of sufficient depth. The topic thus fails the "multiple sources" part of WP:N. Cyber cobra (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  -  EdoDodo  talk 07:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —Cyber cobra  (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Cyber cobra  (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Which is clearly not the case in the BBC story. ArcticStartup reports on start-ups from that area as matter of routine coverage. Here's a sample of companies covered in their current front page: Absolicon Solar Concentrator, Rightware, Voddler, Metallkraft, Moozement, Canatu. So, the sole article on this company there falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Pcap ping  15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Do Not Delete . The Intresting thing about BBC is that they refer to the large global backup survey that is the largest of its kind published on the web. That is notable. Also there are several other sources but I have not found any in English. There are several newpaper articles and tv coverage but it is not available on the Web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backupexpert22 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Backupexpert22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia does not require sources to be web-accessible or in English. But they should be reliable (and for proving notability, significant). --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Since it is a Swedish company I checked online coverage in Swedish, and the Google hits that are not their own marketing or press releases are, just like in the case of BBC, quotes from their backup survey rather than cover the company. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Tomas e (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found several more articles and a review of the service in Swedish media. The largert daily newspaper wrote about it in Efter kraschen. The leading Computer publication write about it here. It was mentione on the largest TV channel Svenskarna är dåliga på att göra backup på sina datorer. Finns det risk för att vår historia (the video in not online anymore). There is also a Kabooza review from the largest publishing group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoman365 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again references where the survey is mentioned, only the last reference from IDG briefly reviews the services provided by Kabooza; this would be the only one that adds anything new. I still think that WP:SIGCOV has not really been fulfilled. Tomas e (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's more, the section of the IDG backup comparison on Kabooza is only about a paragraph in length. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accoding to WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Here it does definately comply with the very heavy competent sources. Backupexpert22 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — Backupexpert22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * By " few or no other edits" I guess you mean that I am new to adding value to Wikipedia. This is much harder than i thought. Kindly Backupexpert22 (talk) Backupexpert22 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * weak keep' The sources from Photoman seem to possibly be enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:Tomas e's above comment, which seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (again with more sources) I have found even more articles about kabooza and also their often refered study. More articles at Business2Press about Kabooza entering and Yahoo Exiting the online storage space. Killerstartups also has a short article about Kabooza and its product. There is also another article on Kaboozas product and about the backup behaviour survey on PC users neglect backup needs. Photoman365 (talk Photoman365 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given KillerStartup's tagline "We review 15+ internet startups per working day.", they don't seem at all discerning. Your last link appears to be from some communications firm's blog and thus not a reliable source. The Business 2.0 Press piece is merely 1 paragraph and thus not of sufficient depth. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No persuasive case for notability has been made. Sources are either passing mentions or unreliable, as CyberCobra and Tomas e argue above. Ucucha 20:17, 24 January 2010 (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.