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. Randykitty ( talk) 21:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Instana

Instana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:SPA article on a company/product. Previously rejected twice at AfC but then recreated in mainspace without addressing the issues identified by The Drover's Wife and K.e.coffman in their AfC reviews. Inclusion in a Gartner field review does not carry inherent notability and nor do fundraising announcements. Since the upload to mainspace, Instana has been mentioned briefly in a "Top Nine Vendor Highlights From KubeCon" item but neither that nor anything else found in searches indicates that notability has been achieved, whether under WP:NCORP if considered as a company or under WP:GNG for its product. AllyD ( talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. This didn't pass AfC for a reason. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• KEEP The SD Times and Techcrunch articles appear to just get it over the line for WP:GNG. There's also an article in Handelsblatt, which is most definitely an RS, albeit German-language. I've got to be honest and say that this kind of AFD raises doubts about the draft process in my mind, since I often see articles nominated for AFD where AFC was skipped where the nomination amounts to "The article creator didn't do what I told them to do, now please delete this for me". It makes me think the process is not being treated as a collaborative one, but instead as a teacher/student one. However, I've never put an article through the draft process so maybe I'm just seeing one side of it. FOARP ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep The Handelsblatt source is solid, although the TechCrunch and SD Times coverage are a bit more borderline for WP:ORGCRITE. Still, the laudatory tone of the SD Times piece, plus the other borderline coverage, leads me to think that more coverage exists such that this meets WP:GNG (i.e. WP:NPOSSIBLE). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: one sources is not enough to meet WP:NCORP. TechCruch & SD Times are too indiscriminate to meet WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment There's also a bunch of other coverage in German media. Do WP:BEFORE people. 1 2 3 FOARP ( talk) 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I appreciate that, despite attempts to codify WP:NCORP standards, judgment still needs to be made of identified sources. I have looked further at those proposed, to evaluate whether I stand by my original nomination. The SD Times text is copied from company PR. The Techcrunch item is a light paraphrase of this PR with the same funding partner quotation. The Wirtschafts Woche item is the same PR funding announcement. The Solinger Tageblatt item appears to be similar, although it is paywalled local coverage. For me, these have to be set aside as falling under the "routine coverage … of a capital transaction" part of our criteria. However, there are the more substantial Gründerszene/Welt and Handelsblatt items. Gründerszene followed their coverage of the same funding announcement with their more detailed article/interview shortly afterwards. Both this and the earlier Handelsblatt article provide more detail but, for me, they remain propositional descriptions about where a start-up company sees its potential market position rather than critical evaluation, and insufficient to demonstrate that the firm has yet achieved lasting encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 13:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft%3AInstana&type=revision&diff=868765294&oldid=868710462 Agathoclea ( talk) 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per the analysis of AllyD, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Even covered at Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2018/12/15/top-nine-vendor-highlights-from-kubecon/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B88C:457E:E468:B580:34F0:F1A0 ( talk) 17:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep tons of news coverage: https://www.google.com/search?q=instana&hl=en&tbm=nws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B88C:457E:E468:B580:34F0:F1A0 ( talk) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (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.