Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StorageCraft


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

StorageCraft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional, with an possible notability entirely reliant upon notices and press releases and mentions; probable paid editor  DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Meets GNG, exemplified by the (paywalled) coverage by the WALL STREET JOURNAL of $187 million in investor capital ventured, indicative of the company's size. What remains is a modest need of repair of tone. Carrite (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's not coverage, just a notice. The standard is not size of company, tho perhaps it ought to be.     DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , just a note, I've struck the above bolded !vote since you were also the nom here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly the company has some serious investment behind it, but there isn't any intellectually independent coverage. Most of the references are company announcements or are extensively based on company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Of the other references, buzzfeed is not regarded as a reliable source and this post was tagged with This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. This huffpost reference states I had the honor to interview some of the executives at StorageCraft and since it is extensively based on interviews with company execs, it fails WP:ORGIND. This esclair.com reference fails as a reliable source since again, anybody can become a "contributor" and there's no editorial oversight. Finally, this forbes.com article was written by an employee of Dell, partners of this company.  HighKing++ 15:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete our standard is intellectual independence, and that doesn't exist here. If people want to move towards a more objective set of criteria for NCORP (which I strongly support) then we should move towards it, but until then, the standard is sourcing and coverage that is both in-depth and intellectually independent. We don't have that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as the 'software' is riddled with promotional copy/buzzwords plus independent searches turned up only non-promotional link in German Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 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.