Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScaleFactor


 * 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 speedy delete. No way that this meets WP:NCORP. Mostly non-WP:RS sources and the promotional tone expected of a paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

ScaleFactor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company that fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article fails to assert a clear claim to significance, and the articles sourcing does not meet Wikipedia's NCORP guidelines. For example, the sources cited are all either trival mentions, press releases (or rehashings of press releases), or venture/funding announcements, with none of said sources providing an in-depth, independent look at the company. I will also mention WP:REFSPAM, as many of the sources (over half) are links to the homepages of companies that invest in ScaleFactor, with none of them providing any sort of context in regards to the subject whatsoever. It should also be noted that the awards won by the company are all local awards concerning Austin, Texas, the company's home city, and thus are trivial when compared to the global scope of the encyclopedia. ScaleFactor is also a relatively new company (founded in 2014) with between 50 and 200 hundred employees. In short, the subject has failed to assert a claim to significance and has failed to accrue the necessary coverage to be considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; have to agree that this does not meet notability standards for inclusion. I've expanded search through Newspapers.com, Archive.org and Google Books and there is really very little to be found among these.  This does not preclude the emergence of sufficient reliable sources in the future to support article creation.  Thus, delete with no prejudice against re-creation, but that such re-creation should rely upon new reliable sources.  The current sources are by and large press releases and blog postings by non-notable authors, as well as a number of external links masquerading as citations.  There are several reliable sources, but not sufficient to support article creation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:38, 8 August 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.