Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CALinnovates (2nd nomination)

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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CALinnovates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Cant find any notability. Only google pings are to social media profiles with one minor article thrown in the mix. Possible COI/paid editing issues too Nightfury 11:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources: Some commentary coverage can be found, such as "Mysterious Campaign Appears to be the Latest Salvo in Battle Over Net Neutrality" (Robert Faturechi, ProPublica) and more recently (subsequent to the previous AfD) "AT&T sends in startup shill to shake up Cali's net neutrality safeguards" (Kieren McCarthy, The Register) and this Gizmodo item describing an "astroturf campaign". AllyD (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: The history of the current article instance shows attempts to curate its content. As it stands now, the second sentence about "taking third-way approaches" is unsourced and somewhat WP:PEACOCKish. However, unless that suggests WP:TNT, these are matters for normal editing, possibly with the aid of page protection. But regarding the notability criteria which are central to this discussion, commentary articles such as those that I cited in my comment indicate a level of attention from multiple sources which may be enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2019 (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.