Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datameer

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datameer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear advertising since both the information and sources confirm it's all either published or republished advertising including the supposedly best ones, which are then labeled as their "PR business section"; putting aside the obvious concerns, the article still overall has nothing convincing in our policies and the history shows clear signs of company involvements; when an article consistently stays an advertisement and is influenced by clear PR people, it's enough for any deletion. Source analysis:

1 is a business profile
2 is again
3 is a mere announcement
4 is a tech-focused blog
5 is a clearly labeled press release
6 is is another announcement
7 is same
8 is a funding business announcement
9 is is another tech-focused announcement
10 is a funding announcement in a PR republisher
11 is same, but this time republished elsewhere
12 is same as 10
13 is same as 10

14 is same as 10

Now, to cover searches, see where I found that:
first 10 are clear announcements and mentions
next 10 is same
next 10 is same
next 10 is same
So there's nothing to satisfy the 2 main factors here, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT which both state republished business announcements and PR are unacceptable and will not help for notability. WP:NOT then also states we're not a business webhost which the past SPAs suggest they used us as a clear one, see SPA 1, SPA 2, SPA 3, SPA 4, SPA 5, SPA 6, SPA 7 and that's also not counting the handful of IPs involved. Considering this, the article then contains the natural signs of it since the focused information all involves itself in the company's own published and republished words, not genuine independent coverage of it. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - see my rationale on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Datameer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croakingtoad (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datameer for the extensive rationale for the article's retention at this deletion discussion's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only really acceptable source is no.4, from the New York Times BITS section, which sometimes is a little more prone to making an article for a still not notable company than the main part of the newspaper. No. 11 is also from the NYT, but its a mere announcement. Substantial articles from the NYT go to show notability , but not announcements even if published there. The other material is either press releases or mentions. I am quite concerned also at the attempts to justify the new references all of which are mentions. This is enough to indicate that the editor responsible should avoid the article, as having too much COI to tell good references from bad. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to lean this way, as a bit too soon. They got some money and hired a marketing person, but not really notable yet in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.