Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osano


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Osano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMO piece for a non-notable organization falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Chatterboxer (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC) The 5 Notability standards of Wikipedia are clearly met for this organization. The organization has significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources both national, international, and regional. Chatterboxer

In addition to meeting the notability standards for media coverage, Osano's software is actively used by > 2% of the Internet making it one of the most used open-source products in history. Chatterboxer

The article does not meet the standard for WP:PROMOTION in that it is not propaganda, an opnion piece, scandal mongering, self promotion, or advertising. The entire article is statements of facts about a notable organization. Chatterboxer


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep being promotional isn't a reason to delete per se. Of the four sources currently in the article, Crunchbase is not reliable and the BusinessWire one is simply a press release. However, the Techcrunch and Business Insider articles are substantial pieces, and the publishers are at least not obviously unreliable. And then there's a lot of coverage in what look to me like 'semi-reliable' online business and techy publications such as and . Taken together, I think there's enough to meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hugsyrup 11:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment From WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those references contains Independent Content.  HighKing++ 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. The Statesman, Techcrunch, Business Insider, Information Week, Silicon Hills references are all churnalism and rely almost entirely interviews and/or information provided by the company, failing WP:ORGIND. This is a young company spending marketing $$ on PR and these articles are examples of the marketing dept doing their job, nothing more.  HighKing++ 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with HighKing in that the sources, while potentially reliable, are essentially all based on sound bites taken from interviews with the company's higher-ups, and thus don't meet the "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" threshold of WP:ORGIND. It seems that this article basically regurgitates the same PR-based fluff that the sources are based on, and evidence of meeting WP:GNG is not satisfied. -- Kinu t/c</i> 15:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.