Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komprise


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Komprise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable firm. The references may seem impressive at first glance, but they are all press releases--even #14, from the NYTimes, as the actual link makes clear  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fairly high chance of this being a commissioned work given the editor's knowledge of lingo such as 'deorphan', categories, infoboxes etc. In addition the sources are simply insufficient to meet our bar for inclusion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on a start-up and its product (and for which I have reminded the contributor of WP:COI and the WP:DISCLOSE obligations). A large proportion of the text and references are about company funding, which is routine for start-ups, and the remaining Features section is largely promotional in tone. The Gartner analysis reproduced in "Storage Newsletter" is the best of the references, providing a c600 word appraisal of the product proposition relative to others in the market. I don't think that new product review is sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability at this point though. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not show sufficient notability at this time. Editor also created an article about the (probably non-notable) COO of this company as their only other significant contribution, which definitely raises another red flag on the COI/PAID issue. PGWG (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2017 (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.