Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skytap (2nd nomination)


 * 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 (no prejudice against renomination). Essentially, those wanting to delete the article (aside from A Train) did not discuss the sources or mention searches for any other, merely saying "not notable" or "churn", while those wanting to keep mentioned sources. Additionally, nobody has edited the article during the AfD, which may have helped other voters come to a decision. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Skytap
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable and promotional. The awards are in niche categories, the references are PR or notices.  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per last discussion, and additional sources. Plenty of coverage from The Seattle Times too, which indicates notability.  Sounder Bruce  01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment in the first AfD. Plenty of coverage that is not PR or notices. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Seattle Times is not PR. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the Seattle Times is not a reliable source. Clearly it is, it's a major newspaper. That said, is the spirit of WP:GNG being met here? Are any of the articles from the Times talking about the societal impact of this company and its products? Is it truly notable? My bar for business notability is lower than most, I think, but the references for this article are all funding notices. What's the wider impact or significance of this company? I'll readily change my vote if somebody can point me to the article I've missed that discusses that.  A  Train talk 08:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See the first AfD. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at all ten of the links you posted in the previous AfD. To my eye, those are all announcements of funding/new products or brief mentions in how-to books on a broader topic. I appreciate that it's a slightly subjective call, but none of that strikes me as "significant coverage" per WP:N.  A  Train talk 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as none of the source cited are (per A Train) press releases, notices about the company's funding, or about a product. Nothing is discussed as to the actual impact of the article subject and its service, nor is a point made as to why Skytrap is different from other cloud computing companies.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We judge notability on the coverage that exists, not the sources that are cited. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What does the existing coverage show in terms of notability? The sources cited do not contain any in-depth material on the company and only list announcements.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No indications of notability. None of the references in the Seattle Times are intellectually independent and are company announcements or business-as-usual articles. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- strictly promotional and no indications of notability or significance. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and are mostly routine announcements or PR driven. No value to the project; wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- non-notable and promotional. The sources presented are all the usual marketing churn. Reyk  YO!  06:58, 27 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.