Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LISNR

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LISNR

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/OM10 with no other contributions outside this topic; the promo walled garden also contains an article on the CEO by the same creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K.e.coffman. I'm in the process of cleaning up this article, getting rid of advertorial content and adding more significant references such as this Wired article: https://www.wired.com/story/when-wifi-wont-work-let-sound-carry-your-data/ -- would love your help with making sure I'm keeping things neutral, helpful, and respectful of guidelines for what I think is an interesting underlying technology. --Aptate (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Aptate has disclosed editing paid for by LISNR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve Will help Aptate clean it up. I think notability is fine, origin of the article nonwithstanding. Jessamyn (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: This is not really an improvement: diff; that's more of promotional 'cruft, cited to TechCrunch and primary sources. I also note that Special:Contributions/Aptate has been paid by the company to work on the article (as disclosed on his user page), so he should not be editing the article directly in the first place. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wired article is a mention, other sources don't have much independant analysis for WP:CORPDEPTH, being promotional and created by UPE is enough to delete per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:BOGOF and to enforce WP:TOU Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment from Aptate: I had not completed the edits I'd hoped to make, so the diff you note above is, agreed, not an improvement. I would like to provide the additional 30+ citations so that someone else can make updates to the page if I cannot, so I'll go ahead and add those to the page under an Additional Citations heading. Please note that I did not create the page or make any edits prior to my disclosure; the page does not reflect current technologies and should be updated to provide the most accurate information.Aptate (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they've actually developed something new that is getting market traction with big companies, there should be an article about them. Awaiting improvements. Jessamyn (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessamyn please don't make multiple bold !votes. Also, please read WP:NCORP, that is not a valid argument to keep the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, though it was relisted and we started over. I read the article. We disagree. Jessamyn (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Wired article is a mere mention-in-passing (and most of that from a connected source, a potential beta customer) and deals with this type of "data over sound" technology in general (and not a discussion of LISNR's specific technology). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (but merge is also appropriate) - There are a lot of sources to wade through, many of which are brief mentions or articles about the founder Rodney Williams (entrepreneur). I found a few which are independent and meet WP:CORPDEPTH, including this from CNBC, NY Observer, and even Tech Crunch (note - there are a few TC articles which are the common churnalism and funding announcements, but this one doesn't fall into that category). For my merge comment, I would say there is enough information to merge this into the article on the founder should there be an appetite for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The NY Observer article has LISNR as one among five hopefuls, and the single paragraph on LISNR is dominated by the word "will" - it's all promises, or in Wikipedia terms, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. There's no notability there, just a bit of whipped-up promise to help fill up a here's-some-cool-stuff-which-might-one-day-be-big article. Sorry but that's not our job here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of promises or not, I consider it significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If you don't, so be it.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that not all the news on them is positive as shown in this IndyStar article. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This actually kind of demonstrates that this article should be deleted, per WP:NOTPROMO - the obvious WP:UPE/promoter who created the article did not care to add such negative information; and I don't see that piece of coverage having much of a depth on the company per WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked at CNBC link above and don't think that is in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the article almost entirely consists of quotes from the CEO or paraphrases of what he is saying, with hardly any actual analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this company is not notable. A gently filtered search returns just 121 hits (despite Google's big boast of 40,000 up front, just scroll down and you'll see), and those are basically all useless. The "citations" and text in the article consist entirely of editors including at least one paid by the company talking up a newish, non-notable company; it is striking that the best-looking item about the company on Google is ... Wikipedia. There's really nothing here to demonstrate the most basic of notability, and heaven knows the bar is low enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:NCORP ,founded in 2012 is upcoming at best They raised 3.5 Million in 2014 and 10 Million in 2015 a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked over the list of Additional citations. None of them strike me as doing much to meet WP:NCORP. They're mostly routine coverage of press releases, with predictions of what the company will do in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (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.