Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Double Octopus

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Double Octopus

[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)

Not notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Sources are user-generated. Written with the intention of promoting it. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is notable. Reliable sourcing has been added and I am sure the article can be further improved with a little effort. Subject is of global significance. No reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Featured in a PR laden article and a couple of listicles. nothing to show lasting coverage. Fails NCORP. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite innovative tech, definitely more noteworthy than most companies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Information_technology_company_stubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikkouSun (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC) — NikkouSun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Sources in the article, including the new ones, are trivial coverage that do not make the company notable. Neither does it being "quite innovative tech." - wonder why this is this anonymous...
Comment Above deletionists are apparently clueless about sourcing as well as trends in today's world (or perhaps have vested interests). Haaretz, Business Insider, Jerusalem Post and Ben Gurion University of the Negev do not cover "trivialities."--Geewhiz (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are pretty par for the course with AfDs and don't really matter. If you really want the article to be kept, instead of wasting everyone's time with useless crap go find some sources that actually meet the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a company that brings new technology to the market, with plenty of objective mentions in local and global media, several awards and nominations, and some serious backing from the likes of SONY and KDDI. I honestly don't like whataboutism but take a look at the average company stub on Wikipedia... Ortamnu (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Ortamnu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Most of the sources within the article fail the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based entirely on funding announcement(s) (failing WP:ORGIND) or promotion by the VC (failing WP:ORGIND - connected source). Two articles might meet the criteria. The first is an article commenting on their quirky company name but also includes information on the company. This is a weak reference but in my opinion meets the criteria. The most compelling reference is from Gartner Research and the table of contents shows that they were written about in detail. Analyst reports are specifically mentioned as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. I also note that at least one other technology analyst firm, Forrester Research, has also provided coverage of the company. As such there are sufficient references and the topic passes WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 11 May 2020 (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.