Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoneriver


 * 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   keep no consensus. Many editors commented on the weakness of sources, lack of sources and lack of depth of coverage. However, the efforts to find more and better sources appear to have paid off and it's my opinion that at least 2 of the provided sources constitute significant coverage and therefore are enough to make the company notable, though only just. A no consensus close may have been justified here, but I'm going with keep on the grounds that at least on delete !vote was explicitly weak and several more were not revisited during the course of the debate as more sources were added. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stoneriver

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

User has removed speedy tag several times. Going with AFD. The speedy tag was placed for blatant copyvio problems, however I don't see how this article meets general notability guidelines. The text itself is not overly promotional (but reads like a website or brochure description of a company), but there are no quality third-party links. The links include lists of companies, not articles/reviews on this company. Also, the "see also" section is highly promotional: links to blogs, facebook, twitter, and linked in. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject in question appears to hold a large part of the market in their respective category - and number competitors of lesser size are represented. The Also See section should be edited to remove promotional links. The analyst organizations sited represent valid third-party accreditation. &mdash; Mkboy1313&#32; 17:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as irredeemable spam requiring a full rewrite to be usable as an article in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - With the changes, it's no longer irredeemable spam. However, I see nothing but press releases, so I do not see how this company meets ntoability. As such, I still maintain a stance of delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has sufficient information regarding how the company was formed, acquisitions, and just a general overview of their structure, not to mention plenty of external sources that notes them to be a creditable company. Also, if you not familiar with insurance technology, there are internal links, as well as external links, to understand the basic terminology. Herosrus (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It appears that the article has been amended, in that highly promotional material was removed from "see also", specific product names were removed from the "Corporate Structure" section, and wiki links have been added for general insurance terms, one of StoneRiver's parent companies, and governmental agency NFIP.  It seems that the issues leading to the speedy tag have been addressed.  It also meets general notability guidelines, in that the company employees 2,500 people and the article now links out ot many other informative articles.  This article could be moved from an AFD to an article for cleanup. NorthOfCola (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe the article needs to be written to comply with NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete. Lets rewrite the article --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No reliable sources with significant coverage found. Regular and news searches only turn up press releases and routine business news coverage beyond the one award already sourced in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are "Independent of the subject" - other companies that have written about StoneRiver. There are "Sources" - secondary notes of definitions. Press releases are noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosrus (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Herosrus has edited only StoneRiver only. No other contributions. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitions usually don't need to be supported by references, and yes, other companies have written about StoneRiver. The question is does it amount to "significant coverage". Press releases are not an indication of notability. Please read Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I have posted to another site Herosrus (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (see this discussion's talk page)--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. The only reference cited that looks like a news article, from "Insurance and Technology", turns out to be a press release. The only possibly reliable outside item I found at Google News was this, and I can't tell if Insurance Networking News is a real publication or not - looks more like a website. Overall, fails notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, I can see why one would think it is just a website, however, Insurance and Technology is a publication.  Please see the following link  Here you will see White Paper, Distribution of Magazines, Podcasts and more.  It is an insurance publication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosrus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a full publication or just a website, the cited page clearly displays "Insurance & Technology Online Buyers' Guide > Press Release" (emphasis added), and press releases don't establish notability no matter where they are published. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which page are you looking at? The page I looked at is this one which is an interview.  That's not enough for me to change my stance, but this one wasn't a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The one used as a reference in the article is here. I don't remember seeing the interview before, but that makes one likely reliable source, which isn't enough for me either. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The interview is from a trade magazine/website that is part of United Business Media. I'm inclined to accept that as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added some more articles. Please see if they are notable Herosrus (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, although I could be convinced to change if someone can find another source. At present there's only one that's both independent and significant so the article fails WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Help Me
 * Keep in mind that this is just my reading and other opinions may vary. References 1 and 5 are trivial mentions, 2 is a press release, 3 appears to be routine news coverage about a buyout although some could call it significant coverage, 4 and 7 appear to be routine coverage of industries in the business - 6 appears to be both significant and reliable, 8 is behind a paywall so I can't tell one way or another, and 9 doesn't even mention StoneRiver. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage (per VernoWhitney's analysis) and fails WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel obliged to point out that there's at least one source with significant coverage, possibly two depending on your interpretation of significant, and the paywalled source. Although not enough significant coverage is of course an option, which is where I stand now that the interview has been found. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (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.