- 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Xendo, Inc.
- Xendo, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one reliable source. Company fails to expresses an identity, it is too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company. Ireneshih ( talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - "Too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company" - How old does a company need to be? Age is not a factor, it is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. You can find the links on the company's press page here - [1]. While I would like to see more coverage, I feel there is enough to meet WP:GNG. I am also not sure what failing to "express an identity" means. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Push to AfC I agree with nom, and note that you have to go beyond looking at the list of articles on the company's (highly selected) PR page and look at the actual articles. There are some "new product" announcements, which are often pumped out from press releases provided by the company. In addition, so many of these "new products" go belly up in a short while that we've discussed at wp:corp adding a kind of a hiatus for startups and new products (with exceptions on the latter, of course, for the most famous, like new Apple products). Most of the mid-depth articles are about the product, not the company, and the editor states in their first edit that they are mixing the two topics, which should be done carefully. The first two paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. The editor has less than 10 edits, an SPA with a high likelihood of COI. This article should go through AfC, and it may not make to main space at this moment in time. LaMona ( talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Draft and userfy perhaps as this seems unlikely solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is at least as informative as similar articles in its category /info/en/?search=List_of_enterprise_search_vendors and contains more citations than most there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin9000 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Put in sandbox: This article doesn't seem that notable yet but good try. The creator should put it back into a draft and improve it for now. Vincent60030 ( talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: One reliable source (TechCrunch) is sufficient, and there are a few others that are somewhat marginal sites in terms of journalism but are independent (e.g. MakeUseOf). The company clearly exists and does what the article it does. It's notability is established by the sources. There's no "too early" guideline for companies. -- Sbwoodside ( talk) 04:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Considering this has been relisted twice, I'm notifying DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who all ask to be notified of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably not yet notable. The information for widespread use comes from company-dervived sources and is not reliable. I'm getting really disappointed in TeleChrunch: they published what is essentially a press release. Thiwsshould not be put into draft space. If it is notable an article should be written by someone without such obvious connection to the firm. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Merlin9000 and Sbwoodside. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 18:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in
reliable sources.
- Miller, Ron (2014-04-09). "Xendo Introduces Search Across Cloud Services At Disrupt SF". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
-
"L'actu tech de la Silicon Valley : Uber dans le viseur de la mairie de Seattle".
Les Échos. 2014-03-21. Archived from
the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
This article spends three paragraphs (roughly 350 words) discussing Xendo.
- 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.