- 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. MBisanz talk 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Attivio
- Attivio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional tone, started by SPA, little evidence of passing WP:CORP, references are largely tangential, tagged since 2011. Google shows little in the way of non-press-release RSes actually about the company. PROD removed by Graeme Bartlett without addressing problems - but just waiting for someone else to fix it hasn't worked in five years. David Gerard ( talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I really love these "company is notable" prod removals without the slightest effort to justify the assertion. Let me help Mr. Bartlett out: there aren't any non-promotional, non-press release, non-fleeting/trivial mention reliable sources to be found, nor any genuine significant coverage. Pity he didn't do that work before the airy PROD removal, but then again, no one else seems to have found qualifying sources either. Ravenswing 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @
Ravenswing:
wp:PROD says: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. This article has been edited numerous times since it was created in 2008, this would suggest to a prudent nominator that PROD is not the correct channel (unless the nominator contacts all involved editors and they all agree it should be deleted).
Ottawahitech (
talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)please
ping me
- That it was clearly evidently terrible seemed sufficient. In any case, if removing a PROD (which of course may be removed at any time by anyone for any reason or none), please do consider addressing flagged problems - David Gerard ( talk) 18:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @
Ravenswing:
wp:PROD says: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. This article has been edited numerous times since it was created in 2008, this would suggest to a prudent nominator that PROD is not the correct channel (unless the nominator contacts all involved editors and they all agree it should be deleted).
Ottawahitech (
talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)please
ping me
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- TOOSOON; all coverage is PR or PR-like: news of funding rounds, interviews, mentions in CRN, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete: This is not a clear case, and it is right that WP:PROD wasn't applied. Some of the given sources do rise above the routine announcement / PR level, for example the bylined 2013 interview in InformationWeek and perhaps the 2014 IT BusinessEdge piece. In addition, Google Books shows the company's products being discussed in several books, though in relation to those from other vendors. The firm/product set is also prominently featured in last year's Gartner Enterprise Search magic quadrant: [1]. However, at this point I am inclined to think that it is still WP:TOOSOON for demonstrated notability, either as company or product, but without prejudice to future change. AllyD ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Soft delete Plenty of sources, userfy on request. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Attivio
- Attivio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional tone, started by SPA, little evidence of passing WP:CORP, references are largely tangential, tagged since 2011. Google shows little in the way of non-press-release RSes actually about the company. PROD removed by Graeme Bartlett without addressing problems - but just waiting for someone else to fix it hasn't worked in five years. David Gerard ( talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I really love these "company is notable" prod removals without the slightest effort to justify the assertion. Let me help Mr. Bartlett out: there aren't any non-promotional, non-press release, non-fleeting/trivial mention reliable sources to be found, nor any genuine significant coverage. Pity he didn't do that work before the airy PROD removal, but then again, no one else seems to have found qualifying sources either. Ravenswing 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @
Ravenswing:
wp:PROD says: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. This article has been edited numerous times since it was created in 2008, this would suggest to a prudent nominator that PROD is not the correct channel (unless the nominator contacts all involved editors and they all agree it should be deleted).
Ottawahitech (
talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)please
ping me
- That it was clearly evidently terrible seemed sufficient. In any case, if removing a PROD (which of course may be removed at any time by anyone for any reason or none), please do consider addressing flagged problems - David Gerard ( talk) 18:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @
Ravenswing:
wp:PROD says: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. This article has been edited numerous times since it was created in 2008, this would suggest to a prudent nominator that PROD is not the correct channel (unless the nominator contacts all involved editors and they all agree it should be deleted).
Ottawahitech (
talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)please
ping me
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- TOOSOON; all coverage is PR or PR-like: news of funding rounds, interviews, mentions in CRN, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete: This is not a clear case, and it is right that WP:PROD wasn't applied. Some of the given sources do rise above the routine announcement / PR level, for example the bylined 2013 interview in InformationWeek and perhaps the 2014 IT BusinessEdge piece. In addition, Google Books shows the company's products being discussed in several books, though in relation to those from other vendors. The firm/product set is also prominently featured in last year's Gartner Enterprise Search magic quadrant: [1]. However, at this point I am inclined to think that it is still WP:TOOSOON for demonstrated notability, either as company or product, but without prejudice to future change. AllyD ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Soft delete Plenty of sources, userfy on request. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.