Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xendo, Inc.


 * 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   keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Xendo, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only one reliable source. Company fails to expresses an identity, it is too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company. Ireneshih (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company" - How old does a company need to be? Age is not a factor, it is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. You can find the links on the company's press page here - . While I would like to see more coverage, I feel there is enough to meet WP:GNG. I am also not sure what failing to "express an identity" means. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Push to AfC I agree with nom, and note that you have to go beyond looking at the list of articles on the company's (highly selected) PR page and look at the actual articles. There are some "new product" announcements, which are often pumped out from press releases provided by the company. In addition, so many of these "new products" go belly up in a short while that we've discussed at wp:corp adding a kind of a hiatus for startups and new products (with exceptions on the latter, of course, for the most famous, like new Apple products). Most of the mid-depth articles are about the product, not the company, and the editor states in their first edit that they are mixing the two topics, which should be done carefully. The first two paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. The editor has less than 10 edits, an SPA with a high likelihood of COI. This article should go through AfC, and it may not make to main space at this moment in time. LaMona (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - How would AfC be better than AfD? AfC is determined on the opinion of one reviewer when AfD is determined by consensus of editors? Seems like AfD would be the better place. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy perhaps as this seems unlikely solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister   talk  05:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is at least as informative as similar articles in its category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enterprise_search_vendors and contains more citations than most there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin9000 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Put in sandbox: This article doesn't seem that notable yet but good try. The creator should put it back into a draft and improve it for now. Vincent60030 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: One reliable source (TechCrunch) is sufficient, and there are a few others that are somewhat marginal sites in terms of journalism but are independent (e.g. MakeUseOf). The company clearly exists and does what the article it does. It's notability is established by the sources. There's no "too early" guideline for companies. --Sbwoodside (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Considering this has been relisted twice, I'm notifying, and  who all ask to be notified of low traffic AfDs.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably not yet notable. The information for widespread use comes from  company-dervived sources and is not reliable. I'm getting really disappointed in TeleChrunch: they published  what is essentially a press release. Thiwsshould not be put into draft space. If it is notable an article should be written by someone without such obvious connection to the firm.   DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the TechCrunch article and do not consider it "essentially a press release". It is a neutral summary of Xendo and its product. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Merlin9000 and Sbwoodside. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. </li> <li> This article spends three paragraphs (roughly 350 words) discussing Xendo.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xendo to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.