Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasure Data


 * 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) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Treasure Data

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion for non notable company. Company lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete An IT company with less than 100 employees and circa 100 customers that has been trading for less than four years. For this to be notable, it would require a significant and substantial amount of coverage beyond a couple of PR driven articles/interviews in industry publications. This is not the case. In fact, it pretty comprehensively fails WP:CORP. Analysis of references:
 * Interview with a company employee on the Linux blog, apparently one of the perks of paying to be a "corporate member", e.g., , , etc. etc.
 * Interview on Jax, an industry news website,
 * Listing in a company directory
 * Posting by one of the company's founders on Quora
 * Video advert by the company posted on Vimeo
 * Testimonials from the company's customers posted on the company's website
 * Article/interview on Gigaom, an industry news website, publicity for the start up
 * A poll posted on StackShare (See GitHub)
 * It's allegedly "best known for Fluentd? That article has even poorer coverage than this one. Note I have also removed all the internal links on the company personnel listed as well as their other product, Embulk. They all redirected to Fluentd but gave the false impression that they were notable in themselves unless you clicked on the link. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I studied the available articles. Category:Data warehousing products such as FastExport. TreasureData is as notable as many other companies in the category.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that equally non-notable software article has now been redirected to the parent company . Wikipedia is full of articles on non-notable subjects, incapable of independent sourcing. That is never a valid reason for keeping yet another one. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete My own research to determine the notability of the company came to similar conclusions as Voceditenore. There's nothing to establish said company is notable enough for inclusion. On a related note, Fluentd is a product of the company and is up for AFD too. Elaenia (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Articles for deletion/Fluentd. It appears that the software Fluentd is reasonably notable, a fact currently obscured by the appalling referencing and promotional tone of that article. Does that make the company notable? In my view no, because the company came after the software was developed and uses it for their cloud storage and data analysis services, their chief business activity. The software (developed by one of the founders of Treasure Data) was released as open source in 2011. However, the company Treasure Data was still raising seed money in 2012. At this point, the company could be covered succinctly (minus all the padding, pointless (self) references, and non-information) in the Fluentd article, if that one is kept. Eventually, the company itself might progress beyond the stage of "promising start up", with multiple independent sources taking note of it. At that point, a stand-alone article could be recreated. But it isn't there now. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2016 (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.