Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData

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 KEEP. The nominator agrees the topic is notable and clean up is underway. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PernixData

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

Just nine Google News hits. I checked Google News Archive as well, but in the archive there are zero hits. Please delete.

[Edit: MelanieN has convinced me that the subject passes WP:CORP. But still, our entire article reads like a press release. Even the lead section reads like a press release. The original author is a SPA, and each of the article's four major contributors is a SPA. I could trim the article down to a stub, but even the stub would still read like a press release. And I don't understand what the company does, so it would be difficult for me to rewrite the lead section. Unless someone fixes the lead section before this AfD ends, please slow-delete per CSD G11.]

—Unforgettableid (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep I found the same results as nominator in a search: namely, just press releases at Google News and literally nothing at Google News Archive. However, the article itself contains links to significant coverage from Forbes, TechCrunch, and InfoWorld among others. I don't know how to explain the discrepancy, but I think the supplied coverage may be enough to pass WP:CORP. The article does need trimming to remove the excess detail about the corporate officers and the boosterish tone of the product description, but those are article issues unrelated to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. Thank you for contributing. In response to your words, I've put forth an additional argument above. Does this convince you to change your vote? :) Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can make the article more acceptable. I'll give it a try later today when I have more time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the SPA and promo issues, the company does have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article should be trimmed to remove promo content, but that is outside of the scope of afd. Dialectric (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have trimmed the article by about a third, eliminating the autobiographical and promotional aspects and (hopefully) making the lead a little more understandable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2013 (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.