Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record360


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Record360

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Either a commissioned work or spam written by an employee. Non-notable company. All the sourcing fails WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH as recycled press releases and the like. It's excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM, and also fails WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  00:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: If considered as an article about the company, the text and references are no more than routine funding coverage. Nor is notability clearer if it is considered as a software product, despite inclusion in occasional lists such as "Put These 9 Smartphone Apps on Your Packing List" . Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Has received significant coverage in third party sources. Cait.123 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't (we don't count inclusion in lists like mentioned above), and that isn't even the primary reason for deletion here, which is NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage includes well-known entities such as Forbes and Entreprenuer, as well as niche websites of the company's target market like ForConstructionPros.com. I'm not sure why these aren't considered notable. And for the record, I was neither paid to write this article nor am I an employee of the company. ColoradoHunter (talk) 20:46 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes Contributors is a blogging platform that is not considered a reliable source. Trade press that you mentioned is also virtually never intellectually independent, and thus doesn't meet the standards of WP:SPIP or WP:ORGIND. For the record, the article shows all the signs of a COI/PAID piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes Contributors isn't exactly blogging platform like a Wordpress.com or something that can be thrown up by anyone who wants to post. They have an editorial review process and editors can remove posts.  If you are to immediately dismiss every Forbes Contributor article, then you need to do the same for sites like Huffington Post.  That said, I do see the greater point you're making.  But Forbes isn't the only known website to mention the company in question. Other sources were already mentioned. Is your argument for "No" more that the article is a Stub rather than not being notable?ColoradoHunter (talk) 3:45 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We do dismiss everyone who uses the HuffPost as a forum for self-publishing without editorial oversight, just like Forbes, where the contributors publish directly without paid editorial staff reviewing it. All the other sources you mentioned have already been addressed above: trade and niche industry press tends to lack intellectual independence and does not establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. What's present is WP:SPIP / passing mentions not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - they've gotten some coverage in minor niche trade pubs, but it's not enough, based on my experience. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  02:11, 15 February 2018 (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.