Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyard


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Vidyard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subjective, verified citations, orphan, advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * keep and address issues. It would seem that how this topic is presented (its tone, format, sourcing) is an addressable issue, and that coverage in such as Financial Post The Drum  Ventute Beat  Morning Post and  Adweek et al, appear to show suitable topic notability.  I should think that rather than deletion, we'd be far better off enlisting the knowledge and experience of editors familiar with writing about technical innovations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Drum is summarizing the Adweek article which hinges on the context of one of YouTube's founders investing in the company. Financial Post article is about the brothers and their house and barely mentions their company, VentureBeat and Morning Post are primarily focused on investors' Y Combinator and mention Vidyard in passing.  If you take away the investment news there's nothing really left (inc. in article).  Notnoteworthy (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should the financial information about a copy be inappropriate content? &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many companies raise money in some form via banks, venture capital, government grants and programs etc. The act of raising money, in and of itself, does not make a company notable except under extraordinary circumstances.  Notnoteworthy (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability for any topic is found through it receiving significant coverage, and not the content of that significant coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable company right now. Arrangington (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources. Financial data is always relevant for corporations. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2013 (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.