Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenfold (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 delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenfold (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)

I see mostly reprints of press releases and routine stuff/short blurbs . Fails WP:NCORP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing much has changed since the last time this article was deleted. The article is a list of people, not a description of what makes Tenfold notable. Revenue up 400% and doubling the workforce is meaningless if we don't know the base numbers. Looks like promo to me. Rhadow (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhadow, I'm a recent main contributor to this article (COI disclosed) and I've recently gone through the process of working on the article to restore it from a speedy delete. Tenfold has been recognized by two independent Austin-based organizations (Built in Austin and Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce) in the past year, and have been written about several times in the Austin Business Journal and the San Antonio Business Journal. I've added the Built in Austin report to the article. "Doubling the workforce" was already deleted in an older version of this artilce since the referenced news source that reported didn't include a base number. Notability was one of the issues raised and resolved in the previous version. Thank you. AkiMerced (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:AUD Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add a {{coi}} on top of the article. The organization does seem to have received some notice in major Texas newspapers and other websites, which satisfies the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. The prose needs some cleanup and editing for neutrality, but this can be done without deletion. Malinaccier (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  NCORP is the criteria. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The references do not write extensively about the subject, titles such as "50 companies to look out for" by nature do not show notability. Ifnord (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and for generally being corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete corporate spam. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PR spam with nothing specific what the company actually does, i.e., thoroughly nonencyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.