Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasuni


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 03:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nasuni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private tech company. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; what comes up is largely PR driven link. Created by Special:Contributions/Exdejesus with few other contributions outside of the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how this process works, so I might not be putting this in the proper format. I'm curious whether articles about other small private companies in this same market, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTERA_Networks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzura , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avere_Systems , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StorSimple , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwinStrata , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbed_Technology , are also being considered for deletion. If not, I would find it helpful to learn some of the differences between the acceptable articles and the Nasuni article. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdejesus (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That other similar topics have their own articles is not valid reason to keep this one. Every article subject needs to prove its notability based on reliable sources to stay on Wikipedia. Articles in published magazines, coverage by renowned news sites, books or scholarly works about article subject are all reliable sources for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I see Nasuni article has some references from RS (eg. The Register). I will review these and add more later (if there are more...). Pavlor (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My review of RS in the article:
 * First The Reg : Mostly company (and its officials) about itself = weak source
 * Computerweekly : company mentioned 2 times in one paragraph = passing mention as an example = weak source
 * Second The Reg : mostly company (and its officials) about itself = weak source
 * Third The Reg : About tests by the company - based on company report = somewhat better, still weak
 * Conclusion: Although article subject is mentioned in several reliable sources, this coverage is shallow at best.
 * Another source (not yet in the article; heise.de/iX magazine): This one looks better than current sources (there is talk about limitations etc.) = useable RS Pavlor (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another source (not yet in the article; Ars Technica): Analysis of similar test as in the third The Reg reference, but this time with more content = useable RS Pavlor (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Added the references mentioned from heise.de/iX and Ars Technica. Also added reference from InfoStor. Also added a reference to an article about how a notable customer compared solutionsthis reference also talks about the merits of other competitive technologies. Also added reference to Register article containing criticism by competitor TwinStrata. Exdejesus (talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * InfoStor looks useable (not much about Nasuni, but at least something), but I don´t know its reliability. Other added are passing mentions. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There are many reliable sources about subject of this article. Although their coverage is somewhat thin, I think they are sufficient to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep agree, it is borderline and the article needs work. But they are still around and noticed in the trade press a decent amount, more than just repeating press releases. Needs an update too. W Nowicki (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- the page can be "improved" by removing the sections "History", "Products", "Customers" and "Awards" (i.e. all of them). The sources included are dubious such as Enterprise Strategy Group (self-published); The Register (channeling company news), etc. Once this is performed there would not be much left. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. Article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2016 (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.