Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayRay


 * 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  14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WayRay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This firm has not yet produced any products. Everything is still under development or speculative. Inclusion in lists is not suitable refs. for notability  DGG ( talk ) 10:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WayRay's long development cycle doesn't undermine notability. Media coverage is solid (check the references num. 1, 3, 9, 15 and 23) and the R&D behind their products got the prestigious Zvorykin Award. That's quite enough. --Gruznov (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:PROMO; Wikipedia is not a web host for corporate promotional materials. This article is simply investment prospectus / product brochure. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Promo and WP:Crystal as to "developments". Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG and as per K.e.coffman and Kierzek above -- HighKing ++ 13:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to remove the marketing content and puffery. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing ++ 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , you cut off ¾ of the article, including mere facts and major sources. That included all the pre-history, most of the history (including the paragraph about Switzerland), all the information about concepts, technologies and products, awards and business model along with references to Reuters, Forbes etc. Mind to explain your edit in detail? --Gruznov (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure think, it was rubbish marketing crap/spam that doesn't have any merit in an article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for companies to lay out their "vision" or "concepts" or "business models". The "references" were advertorials. If you want to include stuff like that, find an independent secondary source (which will indicate to us that something about the "vision" or "concept" or "business model" is notable). The reuters source is an advertorial (and the founder is only two years old? Go figure) fails WP:ORGIND, the Forbes reference is a contributer's blog so self-published. -- HighKing ++ 14:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that you are sincerely mistaken and underestimate the level and quality of publications. See also below. --Gruznov (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. It actually meets WP:ORGCRITE, as Slon.ru (currently named Republic, a QZ/The Economist-like web magazine), Rusbase (Russian wannabe Techcrunch) and The Firm's Secret publications are dedicated to subject and provide deep coverage of company's history and affairs and the article is well-sourced in general. The article mentions investments, contracts and products, but it's not a WP:PROMO case since the references are in place and the style is objective. The "Developments" part may require additional review, but the equipment in Rinspeed concept car seems to be a working product. Basically, WayRay meets primary criteria and GNG and a harsh approach is unnecessary here. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It actually doesn't. All those sources you mentioned are advertorials - interviews dressed up as "news" articles. They're 100% promotion. They fail WP:ORGIND. They are not "intellectually" independent. -- HighKing ++ 14:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Gruznov and Timofei Vatolin. I do not consider the articles to be promotional. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's take three reference sources and consider them carefully. These three texts, I think, should clearly show that WayRay has good information coverage for years. And these are very high-quality and independent materials:
 * The first one was published in October 2013 in Slon.ru (now Republic.ru). This is a large and influential socio-political media in Russia. The author of the text is the editor-in-chief.
 * The second text was released in March 2017 in the publication The Firm's Secret was published detailed material on WayRay. The reason for the review article was the receipt of investment from Alibaba. The secret of the firm is a significant and independent Russian economic media. With an impeccable reputation (also irreproachable is the reputation of the editor-in-chief, Nikolay Kononov, about whom I wrote and translated the article).
 * The third text is a publication in Russian Forbes, written by Elena Krauzova (Forbes staff), again on the occasion of investment Alibaba (An important point: Krauzova is one of the most famous Russian authors writing about technology companies). --Gruznov (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2017 (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.