Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Bond Technologies


 * 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 and salt. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Stone Bond Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am having the greatest trouble seeing that this is a notable corporation. It has 44 staff, so it is a little bigger than a 'small business', but it is by no means a significant corporation by size. It is was once stated to have been a gold Microsoft certified partner (the link was checked on 17 September 2012 but is now a dead link), but so are more other corporations than you can shake a stick at. It has an award from 2006 for being a fast growing corporation in Houston, Texas, but nothing since then. Otherwise it simply has a software product. The article history will show that I have pruned out what I believe is POV and advertorial, though I have no objection to it being reinstated in some form by consensus. Having deleted it I found I could see the wood form the trees, and that the wood was sparse. One contributor to this article is self revealed in the history as the VP of Sales and Marketing, so there has been some limited COI here. So my view is that this should be deleted as non notable (yet). When and if it becomes notable it may have an article here with pleasure. In terms of coverage and potential references, Businesswire and PRWeb (and similar entities), being places where this corporation shows up in news searches, are places where one issues one's own press releases. There are not, of themselves, WP:RS since they are primary sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * note There is a (so far) failed article in Articles for Creation at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stone Bond Technologies which was rejected on the ground of lack of notablility. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:CORP. most coverage is press release type. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional, fails WP:CORP. FurrySings (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I just followed the link to confirm the Gold Microsoft status, and it is a dead link (flagged it thus). Searching for Stone Bond Technologies there reveals nothing. If the article survives this discussion then this needs to be addressed for the future. The current citations show now one to a trivial award and the other to Bloomberg's 'yes this exists' page. The remainder are not really appropriate as WP:RS references Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The firm's key product does feature in this year's Forrester Wave on data virtualisation], as a Strong Performer. Whether that progresses sufficiently from the "yes, it exists" to demonstrated notability remains open to question though. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: if this company has notable products, they should be covered in respective articles, but itself it isn't notable, or at least nothing suggests notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that there is an AFC submission of the same quality, I would propose salting the name (with a mention of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stone Bond Technologies in edit summary) until the subjects gets notable, so that the future editors willing to cover the subjects would be routed to the AFC submission. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support that as a practical device if the outcome of this discussion is to delete the main namespace article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 24 September 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.