Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yext

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. None of the 'keep' !voters addressed the question of notability through reliable sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yext

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

Declined G11 speedy deletion nominee (barely). Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently lacks "significant coverage" in sources. The very limited coverage is generally of the "transcribed press release" level, albeit sometimes in a "best of" mode... Studerby (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs as I read them prove existence. They also imply 'up and coming' but not actually come yet - and as the above post says, 'press release', once again, as I read them. In time (possibly a short time), Yext may be notable in the future. It probably will. (We wouldn't have listed the telephone just as soon as it had been invented...) When there's a bit more to say, come back - or someone may have created the article for you already, maybe. In the mean time, I've added a few 'citations needed' to claims in the article that are unsupported. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was quick! All dealt with - except one point. TechCrunch is (and I quote them): "TechCrunch was founded on June 11, 2005, as a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies" and thus is not a reliable source. Sorry.... Peridon (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Removed that last reference altogether - can completely see how that would be dodgy. NOT wanting this to be a marketing ploy, solely an encyclopedic profile similar to Yelp, Inc., Mint.com, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarjgarza (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Find some better refs - for main refs no bloggy things, forums or anything that smacks of press releases or self-published. I'm not far on the delete side of neutral and prefer to save articles (unless they're total spam or drivel...). Peridon (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - how does this get resolved one way or another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarjgarza (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wait out the required time period (a week or so), and then an administrator reviews the discussion and determines whether the article should ultimately be kept or deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.170.143 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A leading edge technology company with $25 million in funding and national media coverage. The only reason to delete it is if the company goes out of business.USchick (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$25 million is nice for them; it's also not particularly notable in the startup world. During normal economic times, there are lots of such startups each year, the majority of which fail, a minority of which succeed but you never hear about in reliable sources, and a very very few that succeed and become notable. Almost all of them work with venture capitalists who help them get those press releases out the door and into the trade press and on the news wires. For Wikipedia puposes, it establishes existence and sources for minor facts, but doesn't establish notability. The key to notability is "significant coverage". The Wall Street Journal' "coverage" is PR newswire transcription. The TechCrunch and AMNY references are "hey, these guys look interesting" flags in "roundup"-type articles (that then echo PR info); whether that's "significant coverage" or not is arguable and is dependent on source quality and quantity. Frankly, AMNY is a poor source; TechCrunch is so-so. If all the tech blogs were talking about X, then X would be notable (and true coverage would follow very shortly). They might be on the cusp of notability, or even fame, but I don't think they're there just yet.Studerby (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a business that provides online advertising services for local businesses, based on a pay-per-action model. I see mostly routine announcements about financing, no doubt a good thing for a startup, but not notable; and coverage apparently arising out of inclusion in a "top 50" list or conference, again, not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is close to being notable but not quite there yet based on a scan of search results, news, etc. If they gain notability, they can be re-included at that time. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (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.