Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zadara Storage


 * 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. Following rewrite. May be renominated if still deemed problematic.  Sandstein  20:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Zadara Storage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTPROMO. Delete and salt as a COI/SPA/PR target that will likely be recreated otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: A couple of sources for consideration are: a discussion of the firm in Gartner's Cool Vendors in Storage 2014 (pages 5-6), and an October 2015 article in The Register which has the opinion that the company is " virtually competing in a field of one with its overall technology and business model" . I am undecided whether these go beyond WP:CRYSTAL to express attained notability so am just offering them as comment at the moment. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- yes, crystal ball for sure. The Register is not exactly a top drawer source either. Cool Vendor means that they are up and comer, so could possibly be notable down the road, maybe. Still delete for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a new company in California and then none of this is actually convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  03:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. The sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:AUD. In fact the vast majority of coverage are press releases. This is a fairly recent company which was started about 5 years ago and I think it has some way to go before it can be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I just completely rewrote the article with good sources and hopefully limited promotionalism - everything comes from third party coverage, and was rewritten to prevent COPYVIO.Timtempleton (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite. Brandon (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a somewhat weaker level, and keep per WP:HEY. Notions herein about the company's age relative to notability are not guideline- or policy-based, and WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay. See also, the opinion essay: WP:NEWCOMPANY. Here are some sources:, , (be sure to view page 2), , . North America1000 04:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- even after a rewrite, the article and sources are not compelling; this is still about partnerships and planned deployments:
 * "In March 2013, the company partnered with storage vendor NetApp to deploy hybrid cloud solutions for customers.[8] In August 2013, Toshiba's America Electronic Components (TAEC) division invested $3M in the company, which by then also had storage arrangements with hosting company Dimension Data. Reports indicated that as part of the investment Toshiba's disk drives would be used in Zadara's storage products.[3] In May 2014, Zadara Storage announced a project to deploy a cloud-based educational initiative with distance learning company Echo360.[9]" Etc.
 * CRN is trade press and is often pay-per-play; I've already commented on The Register'; VentureBeat is interesting, but this is still all future looking: "Zadara Storage wants to bring the security, control, and performance of the private cloud to public cloud storage." (and not has brought)
 * I think this still fails CORPDEPTH and is insufficient for GNG since this is mostly trade press. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - yes, the history has been expanded, but there's still a sources problem. Per WP:NCORP, Startupbeat and sramanamitra aren't independent and USPTO can't be used for notability. Storagernewsletter is literally guessing (it uses "apparently" far too often). Socaltech is a press release, and that's on top of what K.e.coffman has indicated above.  Aside from the fact that I now have objective proof that the founder wrote the article in the first place, I'm just not seeing anything here that leaves me with the sense that notability is met - it's still just another tech company amongst a slew of tech companies, and I still have no idea why what they actually do is notable either. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I prodded this article myself some weeks back, and the prod was removed with a not satisfactory answer (multiple previous editors, incoming links; IMHO almost all from connected editors). While I must admit the improvements made by User:Timtempleton and User:Northamerica1000 make this work much better, I don't see this subject as a company which adequately meets WP:CORPDEPTH. As analyzed above by several editors, and with due respect to those improving this page, most of these sources just don't adequately meet WP:IRS. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. The subject must be proved notable by our guidelines and I still think this fails that test. BusterD (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought Prod was for uncontroversial deletions where no resistance was expected. This is obviously not that. I'm going to look at and integrate into from the new sources when I have time over the next few days but even now I just don't see how this is a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 August 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.