Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyword (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. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyword (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)

Just like the prior entry, this time the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Whoever accepted this at AfC (User:Ctg4Rahat) should read up on the relevant policies before adding more spam to Wikipedia (the article was even tagged as an advert prior to being moved to the mainspace! Also ping User:AllyD, User:CerealKillerYum, User:czar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have not yet evaluated whether the references in the new article are sufficient to overturn the deletion position from December, but this suggests a broader point. Should a step be added to the AfC process, such that existence of a prior AfD deletion decision is checked, so that if a reviewer is minded to accept the AfC, s/he automatically refers it back to AfD? AllyD (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If the reviewer is using the AfC script (which almost everyone does), they are notified if the page was previously deleted. A new AfD is not generally needed for previously deleted material, and requiring one would be a waste of people's time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the advert tag, it was (incorrectly) added by an inexperienced user in Draft space and (correctly) removed by Ctg4Rahat when he accepted the article. The current state of the article does not read like an ad at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The company has received substantial reliable source coverage in a variety of sources, some of which is already in the article. For example, The New York Times does not write about non-notable businesses. The company's research is cited as expert opinion by Forbes. Its activities have even been noted by French language sources. All-in-all, there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of reliable sources either writing about Skyword or using Skyword as an expert opinion: [1] & [2]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the NYT piece seems to be reliable and more than a passing coverage, all other mentions you cite seem rather trivial (in passing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All other" articles listed consists of two sources that were cited as an example of a specific thing - being quoted as experts by reputable sources or being noticed even in foreign media - not necessarily as examples of in depth coverage. Other examples of substantial coverage include [3][4][5] and so on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The above recommendation for Strong Keep is strongly based on the primary criteria within the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met by the The New York Times as well as "StartOut.org". Both these pieces along with the others references within the article provide context about the importance of the company within its industry as well its importance to the community. The company's expert opinion is also recently cited by "Harvard Business Review". Along with other regional, national, and international coverage this hits WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND criteria. --Massgrownpro — Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Massgrownpro:, FYI (in response to your edit summary), yes you are allowed to "vote". However, decisions are made based on the strength of arguments, not numbers, so your "comment" is equally effective. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2015 (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.