Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varolii

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. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varolii

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

The article is authored by someone who self-identifies as the "web marketing manager for Varolii Corporation". The article does cite a few claims to fame so it's not speedyable under A7 and is reasonably well-written and not spammy, so it is not speedyable under G11. But the references given in this article are three press releases and a trivial mention in a news article. From searching around, I find a lot of press releases, but that's about it - I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:CORP. -- B (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage about their planned IPO, coverage about their name change, and coverage of their non-IPO indicate the company meets notability with coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of teh company. Mind you, I ahd to go through a lot of press releases to find these. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Whpq found some good refs above, and looking through the search I did I saw some similar mentions that seem to indicate there's some outside coverage of this company. The article needs to be edited, it has some marketing flavour to it, especially in the last couple of sections. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've tagged the section as reading like an advert. It certainly needs some severe editting as you've pointed out. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As written above, it seems like this company is notable as there are several business news / journals that have reported on this company. It can certainly be improved. [1] and [2] Tgv8925 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (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.