Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastic.io

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. – Joe (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic.io (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)

This appears to be a thinly veiled advertisement for a non-notable business. Of the sources, only one talks about the company in any real detail and that seems to be on a dubious website hosting lots of similar marketing churn. Among other sourcing problems is repeating the same one in german and English, and repeating the link in a footnote in the external links to make it look like the article has more sources than it really does. I cannot find anything substantial either. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As previously noted by the editor placing the WP:COI notice, the contributing editor's focus has been on adding material about this company. The same contributor's rationale for removing a WP:PROD was "there are existing Wikipedia articles that mention this company, as well as articles about similar companies. However, there is only one based in Germany - exactly this one" but neither mentions in other articles, nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, nor singularity of geographical base, even if true, would be inherent grounds for notability. The multiple Reference and External Links to articles authored by the company founders are WP:PRIMARY. There are mentions along with other service providers and inclusion in "vendor to watch" lists, so it is verifiable as a company going about its business, but this is not a business directory and I am not seeing sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a very good chance that this organization meets the criteria for notability as the company and product offerings have been covered by independent analyst reports from firms such as Gartner and Crisp (as per WP:LISTED and yes, even though this company is not listed, the guidelines are clear that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability). But the current article (marginally) fails WP:SPIP - Wikipedia is not a substitute for company sales brochures. With some editing to remove unnecessary details and make it seem less like a sales brochure, this article may turn out good. I'll hold off on a Keep !vote for now since the article needs work. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 23 May 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.