Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Originate


 * 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. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Originate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of satisfying corporate notability or that its products satisfy software notability. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits, and no in-depth coverage.

Second and third sentences of lede paragraph are marketining gibberish. They could be deleted, leaving a stub, but deleting promotional about a non-notable company leaves a stub about a non-notable company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe this company does satisfy corporate notability given that they are known within the space as inventing this particular business model which we are writing a research paper on. There are several credible articles which discuss this. Thanks for your suggestions around marketing language. I have further edited and would welcome any other suggestions around language. Thank you! Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Kine Sundberg (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the company has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. These are not easily found in google due to the common-word name of the company "Originate". Here are some examples of articles:
 * https://venturebeat.com/2013/11/27/if-this-startup-succeeds-youll-only-need-to-charge-your-phone-once-a-week-exclusive/
 * https://techcrunch.com/2012/06/24/los-angeles-startup-accelerators/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2012/07/09/12-entrepreneurs-that-are-changing-la-forever/2/
 * https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/ceo-of-originate-inc-says-hes-always-been-entrepreneur/
 * http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Startups-get-human-capital-for-an-equity-stake-4825703.php
 * https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/5406/management-alums-turn-fitness-inside-out
 * http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/icm-manatt-and-originate-form-incubator-for-media-and-tech-startups-1201271823/

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep obviously. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Analsyis of references in article fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since they are either PRIMARY sources, run-of-the-mill business listings or based on company announcements. The references posted above also fail the criteria of establishing notability. This venturebeat article fails CORPDEPTH as it not in-depth and is a mere mention-in-passing. The TechCrunch article fails for the same reason - the company is merely name-checked. The Forbes article also fails for the same reason as it is a mention-in-passing on a profile of their CFO and is does not have the in-depth details required for establishing notability. The reviewjournal article fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it relies exclusively on an interview with the CEO with no independent analysis or opinion. If also fails as a PRIMARY source and is not intellectually independent. Similarly, the sfgate article fails CORPDEPTH for the same reason as it relies exclusively on an interview/quotations with the CEO. The universityofcalifornia.edu article fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as the first three references above as it a mention-in-passing in relation to mentioning that Scheinrock is president and CFO. The variety.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a PR and/or company announcement - the announcement is repeated with the same quotations and details in other articles such as this LATimes article, this Forbes article, this hollywoodreporter article and may others. This manatt.com reference clearly shows the Press Release that the other articles are based on. -- HighKing ++ 19:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by far. --  Dane talk  06:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources presented above are not in-depth coverage, they're about employees with just trivial mentions of the company. I failed to locate any other reliable sources. — Za  wl  13:12, 1 October 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.