Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tealeaf


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tealeaf

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable company. No references to independent coverage given, and I have been unable to find any. Haakon (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some citations from independent sources. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, strongly. This business calls itself a Customer Experience Management (CEM) software company.  In other words, a non-consumer tech business describing itself with a three letter acronym.  "References" added are not obviously about this business, are from PR Newswire, or are from company personnel.  Most importantly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this business or its products have any historical, technical, or cultural significance, without which no business is an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as some more sources are found. I added the links to the WashingtonPost and CIO magazine articles. The Washington post article includes little but relative information about the company. The CIO article is focused on a customer problem and how Tealeaf's products and services helped him. Both references are important but alone they are not enough. I would suggest the author to try and enhance the article with more references. In that case it would pass the keep bar for me. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hate corporate shilling, but this article includes product description which makes it of potential use to users. While additional sources are no doubt desirable, the information here indicates to me that this one happens to be worthy of continued inclusion. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * relisted for some guidence on whether the sourcing is now up to requirements. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 15 July 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.