Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shipwire, Inc.


 * 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. Difficult: most mentions are minor and/or press releases. However, one fairly significant source appears to exists. Closing as no consensus to delete ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Shipwire, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

non-notable company--few clients, small size.  DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia company notability guidelines for information on what is considered notable by the community. The definition of notability is whether or not the organization has attracted the notice of "reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." In my opinion, Shipwire meets the guidelines for notability. See article for list of sources. "Few clients" is a not a criterion for notability. There are firms such as Carahsoft that have one main client but are indisputably notable. Charlie Liang (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather disingenuous to equate the US government with Rovio Entertainment. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The intention wasn't to be devious but rather prove my point that number of clients is not a reliable basis for notability. Also, this criterion is not called out in Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Charlie Liang (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Half the sources are from the company itself, the other half are puff and press releases. Obvious delete. EEng (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone struggling with the obfuscatory marketing jargon in this article the English translation is that this is a warehousing and shipping company that uses computers. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't resist pointing out that if we could find a warehousing and shipping company that, in this day and age, does not use computers, then that would certainly be notable. EEng (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to remove the obfuscation from the article, but it still reads more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article. In particular I'm stumped by "The SaaS provider is currently used by companies such as Rovio to store and fulfill physical goods." Surely warehouses and trucks store and fulfill physical goods, or has software got so much cleverer since I retired from the industry that it can dematerialise physical goods and contain them within itself and teleport them? Or is this just another attempt to shoehorn a trendy buzzword into the article without any thought as to what the sentence containing it actually means? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cleared up the nebulous wording. It should be more straightforward now. Charlie Liang (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep: per NBC and Forbes.-- Dewritech (talk)  10:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Each source you mention has a maximum of three sentences relating to the subject -- hardly significant coverage. Anything else you can offer us? EEng (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal has more than three sentences, so my keep isn't weak any more.-- Dewritech (talk)  12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - it's sourceable, but the sources found do not discuss the company in great length or depth. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Small Business Trends and Practical Ecommerce for product reviews Charlie Liang (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are those sources reliable? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Mentions in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NBC Bay Area, and TechCrunch seem enough to meet WP:CORP to me. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most of what turns up at Google News is press releases disguised as articles, but there are a few solid articles such as the WSJ one cited by Dewritech which are probably enough to meet WP:CORP. Article would be a lot better if it were rewritten in English instead of jargon (this is a company that stores and ships merchandise on behalf of other companies), and if some of these better sources were cited. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2012 (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.