Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raw Engineering

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. Sandstein 09:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Engineering (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)

Neither this or the rebranded name of built.io have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability of WP:NCORP. Current sources are far from reliable. SmartSE (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth sources and for failing to assert why Raw Engineering is distinctly notable when compared to similar companies. Note this article is about the company and not said company's software, so the NCORP guideline is relevant.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and generally WP:TOOSOON. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The current sourcing is terrible and I almost jumped on the delete train, but I reread the nomination and found some coverage in tech pubs under the new name built.io of their work with the NBA [1][2][3], their community platform [4][5], their digital accelerator [6] and their Contentstack CMS product [7], which reportedly has Cisco, Best Buy and the Miami Heat as customers, and is being spun off as its own company. Meets WP:GNG by my reasoning. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Timtempleton: In case you weren't aware, WP:NCORP was substantially tightened recently - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-04-26/Opinion. The main problem with those sources is that they are all relatively obscure tech publications (WP:AUD) - techcrunch for example is of no use for demonstrating notability. If there was some coverage in more mainstream sources, then the situation would be different, but if these are the best sources out there, I still do not think they are enough. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smartse: I went to the new guidelines and don't really see anything that excludes any of the sources I posted above. We could certainly debate the similar notability of obscure writings on church doctrine used to source religious articles, or scientific papers used to source plant enzyme articles. Nonetheless, for the matter at hand, I just noticed you recently deleted an article named Built.io. Can you put it in my sandbox per WP:REFUND? I'd like to see if I can bring it up to passable status with the sourcing I identified. If I can, then this one can be deleted - I've already captured the text. Thanks! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we could, but that doesn't have a basis in policy, unlike WP:CORP. Anyway, no worries, we can see what others think. As for built.io - it's irretrievably promotional so I won't be restoring it, but I have put some of the better references in User:Timtempleton/sandbox. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Grassy ass! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run-of-the-mill technology company with zero indications of notability. References fails the criteria for establishing notability. References noted above also fail the criteria for establishing notability. In general, they are not intellectually independent, rely on quotations from a business partner and rehash company press releases. For example, this techrepublic.com reference is not intellectually independent and relies extensively on quotations/information from a business partner. It also appears to be a rehashing of this company press release. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I changed and struck my vote to speed this up and clear the queue. I'm still reviewing the sourcing for built.io, but since this is the old company name, no need to keep it unless anyone thinks the edit history is worth saving. This would only make sense as a redirect if the built.io article was deemed worth keeping, so it's chicken and egg now. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 7 June 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.