357:
that contributions are recognized. Specifically if a
Knowledge (XXG) article is copied to somewhere else, users are required to give acknowledgement to authors. This breaks connection to authors who did identify a valid topic and probably provided valid material that was re-created in a new article, violating trust. So, definitely keep. --
356:
is an essay, not policy. References to it are generally acknowledging that a topic is wikipedia-notable but suggesting that material contributed by editors be deleted, and the article be re-started. This ensures that valid contributions are NOT acknowledged, violating core
Knowledge (XXG) principle
488:
You have the option to withdraw your nomination if you find, as you seem to be considering, the article meets your interpretation of the criteria. I'm sure you already know that, so please treat this as a suggestion to invoke that option. It is unlikely to affect the duration of the discussion, but
437:
This article passes the test for me. It has produced evidence of notability, though I would like to see the referencing improve since a goodly number are PR style. There are sufficient solid, RS references for it to be acceptable here and the remainder need tidying up and replacing. There is an ANI
560:
Sorry, I am not impressed by the sources; there is little or nothing from what we would term
Reliable Sources. True, there are two items from Forbes (a Reliable Source) but they are just funding announcements; and there is one from TechCrunch (arguably a Reliable Source) but it's just basically
521:
The references are primarily promotional, either press releases or mere notices, despite a few of them being published in sources which are generally reliable. Even the Forbes article just repeats what the ceo told the reporter.
458:
I agree and I didn't think about this when I mentioned it at ANI - but all the editors who have reworked the article from the state it was in when I nominated it have done a great job, the article is much better balanced now.
161:
561:
repeating what
Horowitz said on his blog. The rest of the sources are trade journals and such, not known for their editorial oversight. I don't find significant enough Reliable Source coverage to meet WP:CORP. --
442:, arguably too early, where this has been mentioned, and that may lead to a reasonable number of opinions being placed in this discussion now. We must judge the article as it is today, not as it was once.
497:
Thanks for letting me know that - however I don't feel whether it should be kept or not should be decided based on a procedural call. I'll be happy with the consensus of this regardless of the outcome.
114:
285:
155:
325:
305:
121:
353:
240:- there seems to be the requisite "more than passing coverage by reliable sources" underneath the layers of unadulterated advertisement. --
87:
82:
17:
91:
176:
143:
74:
368:
589:
40:
137:
392:
241:
133:
570:
552:
533:
507:
490:
468:
453:
425:
396:
373:
337:
317:
297:
276:
249:
228:
205:
56:
183:
585:
388:
36:
224:
220:
169:
78:
406:
260:
566:
448:
216:: Forbes, Allidm.com, gartner, Tech News World, network world, Baseline Magazine,info world are
149:
503:
464:
421:
383:
Sufficient reliable sources for notability and the article has been cleaned up so no need for
363:
333:
313:
293:
272:
201:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
584:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
352:
above is a pretty reliable signal, in my experience from other AFDs, of inappropriate zeal.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
439:
384:
349:
264:
217:
548:
70:
62:
562:
529:
443:
499:
483:
460:
417:
358:
329:
309:
289:
268:
197:
53:
108:
409:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
543:
524:
348:. Forbes articles alone establish notability. Also, the reference to
438:
discussion at present about the editor who accepted this through
578:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
196:. This is just a promotional article about the company.
104:
100:
96:
168:
192:No evidence of notability of the company provided.
416:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
182:
194:Despite the formatting issues (which are fixable)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
592:). No further edits should be made to this page.
286:list of California-related deletion discussions
326:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
306:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
324:Note: This debate has been included in the
304:Note: This debate has been included in the
284:Note: This debate has been included in the
323:
303:
283:
354:Knowledge (XXG):Blow it up and start over
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
541:, lots of discussion in sources. —
24:
571:17:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
553:03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
534:18:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
508:18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
491:19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
469:18:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
454:15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
426:18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
397:05:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
57:12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
374:21:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
338:15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
318:15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
298:15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
277:13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
250:00:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
229:22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
206:21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
238:completely rewrite and keep
609:
265:blow it up and start again
489:will affect the outcome.
581:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
245:aka The Red Pen of Doom
48:The result was
428:
340:
320:
300:
246:
600:
583:
487:
451:
446:
415:
411:
389:I am One of Many
371:
366:
361:
247:
244:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
608:
607:
603:
602:
601:
599:
598:
597:
596:
590:deletion review
579:
481:
449:
444:
404:
369:
364:
359:
242:
195:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
606:
604:
595:
594:
574:
573:
555:
536:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
494:
493:
474:
473:
472:
471:
431:
430:
429:
413:
412:
401:
400:
399:
377:
376:
342:
341:
321:
301:
280:
279:
253:
252:
234:
233:
232:
231:
193:
190:
189:
126:
71:Okta (company)
65:
63:Okta (company)
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
605:
593:
591:
587:
582:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
559:
556:
554:
550:
546:
545:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
526:
520:
517:
516:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
492:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
452:
447:
441:
436:
433:
432:
427:
423:
419:
414:
410:
408:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
375:
372:
367:
362:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
251:
248:
239:
236:
235:
230:
226:
222:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
580:
577:
557:
542:
538:
523:
518:
434:
405:
380:
345:
256:
237:
213:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
156:free images
263:; best to
221:Wikicology
586:talk page
330:• Gene93k
310:• Gene93k
290:• Gene93k
261:WP:ADMASQ
37:talk page
588:or in a
563:MelanieN
407:Relisted
115:View log
39:or in a
500:CaptRik
484:CaptRik
461:CaptRik
418:Natg 19
269:ukexpat
259:- pure
214:Comment
198:CaptRik
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
54:Spartaz
558:Delete
519:Delete
450:Faddle
445:Fiddle
440:WP:AFC
385:wp:TNT
350:wp:TNT
257:Delete
243:TRPoD
134:Google
92:delete
50:delete
530:talk
218:WP:RS
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
567:talk
549:talk
544:Cirt
539:Keep
504:talk
465:talk
435:Keep
422:talk
393:talk
381:Keep
346:Keep
334:talk
314:talk
294:talk
273:talk
225:talk
202:talk
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
525:DGG
365:ncr
184:TWL
113:– (
569:)
551:)
532:)
506:)
467:)
424:)
395:)
370:am
360:do
336:)
328:.
316:)
308:.
296:)
288:.
275:)
267:.
227:)
204:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
565:(
547:(
528:(
502:(
486::
482:@
463:(
420:(
391:(
387:.
332:(
312:(
292:(
271:(
223:(
200:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.