Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instaclustr

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instaclustr

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

Doesn't appear notable under WP:CORP. Sources are nearly all of the "has raised $X million" press announcement variety. Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - weak although possibly TOOSOON. What is wrong with new companies raising funds, that is what they do. (Or old ones for new projects.) Plenty of secondary references, more for example:

although interestingly some of the facts in the above references seem to disagree with the facts as referenced in the article !? Aoziwe (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with raising funds, it's just that every stab at a start-up has its fundraising listed and then we never hear from most of them again. If the only thing a company is known for is that it raised funds, then it isn't really notable. You say that "that is what they do", but of course it isn't. They raise funds to enable them to do what they do, and it's what they do that they should be known for if there's going to be an article. These funding announcements fall in the same category of routine or trivial announcements, some of them barely concealed press releases, described at WP:CORPDEPTH. "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that we are really disagreeing too much. I should have said weak keep - changed above - I did say TOOSOON. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - agree with analysis by User:Aoziwe concerning notability and cleanup required. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as along with tge list, it says "simply not enough" and they are still too trivial and are not the substance we need especially for the policies we have which are non-negotiable. Aside from that, this is simply a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources don't strike me as the independent in-depth reliable sources of in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:NCORP. It's just typical start-up noise. MB 02:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps try again when there is significant coverage, but now it is too soon since very little truly independent source material. W Nowicki (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam, aka WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2017 (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.