Theresa Greenfield ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This AfD was considered a month and a half ago. Since then (and even since the previous deletion reviews), the Iowa US Senate race has become far more high profile and has attracted significant press attention since then. While not all candidates for all races should have an article, Greenfield is clearly not a sacrificial lamb or an extreme long shot.

The previous deletion review, started by Oakshade, was closed with "There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn" by S. Marshall. Since the race has become even more on national radar since then, I think it's fair to revisit restoring an article for Greenfield. KingForPA ( talk) 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Some additional notable source material released since the last review's conclusion include another poll from GQR Research showing Greenfield in the lead [1], widespread coverage of her recent fundraising hauls [2] [3] [4], a high-profile endorsement from Chuck Schumer [5], and most usefully for a potential article restoration, an in-depth profile from the Daily Beast [6]. These are all testament to the growing profile of the race in recent weeks (all of these are from the last week, even). KingForPA ( talk) 21:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• The relistings will continue until the article is restored, apparently.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I do feel that conditions surrounding the election in question have changed noticeably enough in the month since that last review was opened to warrant re-visiting it, yes. KingForPA ( talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse again You are talking about the election being competitive, nothing about the candidate herself. Edit at 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• The previous DRVs: June 4-11, June 15-24. — Cryptic 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

In fact the GNG-coverage goes well into Greenfield's background including The Daily Beast coverage from July 11 that goes very in-depth to her pre-politics career. [1] Oakshade ( talk) 20:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - It's very simple. The AfD was closed before this person had GNG-passing coverage. After the AfD and first DRV, this person gained an abundance of GNG-passing coverage and emerged as a major candidate in a US Senate election. The only 2 "endorse" voters in the 2nd DRV ignored any of the new GNG-passing coverage with one saying it being too recent since the AfD and the other literally made no argument at all. I warned that multiple editors will be re-visiting this topic in the near-future as more editors will come across it surprised it doesn't have an article and that's what's happening. And if this article isn't created, DRVs will happen again and again. Oakshade ( talk) 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Filibustering until you find a closer who only looks at wrods in bold may sometimes work at AFD, but I assure you it does not here. — Cryptic 00:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Again, this is completely ignoring the GNG-passing coverage that occurred after the AfD. I didn't start this DRV so the "filibustering" claim is nonsensical. Oakshade ( talk) 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'd honestly say that claim isn't true, either, seeing as one of the endorse votes on the previous DRV was simply justified as, quote: "[W]e just had a DRV on this not even a week ago", which isn't really a reasonable justification to vote in any direction, and even if it was then, it's certainly not true now. Getting upset at editors for stating the obvious - that this will continue to come up so long as she is a major party nominee who has clearly met WP:GNG - is, to be frank, bizarre and almost feels like WP:DLC. Greg Orman got an article in 2014, and out of the 2018 nominees, Lucy Brenton (L-IN), Shiva Ayyadurai (I-MA), Murray Sabrin (L-NJ), Susan Hutchison (R-WA), and Gary Trauner (D-WY) all got articles despite being non-notable candidates with no previous elected experience (excluding minor party leadership). Jenny Wilson, Democratic nominee in Utah, also had an article at the time, although she has since been elected Mayor of Salt Lake County. This is being repeatedly brought up in DRVs because the justification laid out in both the AfD and the subsequent DRVs was clearly not meeting standards previously set. If you'd like to nominate those folks' pages to AfD now, too, be my guest. KingForPA ( talk) 00:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Additional note: Orman's page was also nominated for deletion in October of 2014, when he was the de facto Democratic nominee. The consensus was to keep. KingForPA ( talk) 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, salt and list at WP:DEEPER, obviously. The "new sources" are well short of what's needed, the attempt to get a Wikipedia article by exhausting the community's capacity to respond is deplorable, and the matter should now be put to bed until after the election is decided.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Banning the creation of a GNG-passing topic simply because the issue is brought up "too soon" after an AfD is deplorable. The coverage will only get more plentiful as the weeks move on. This US Senatorial candidate is suspiciously being singled out for article non-creation as compared to all the others we have articles for. Oakshade ( talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Again, a nonsensical accusation. Also worth noting that of the articles at DEEPER, all of them had significantly more AfDs and DRVs than this one. Some folks seem to be treating this as a proxy war between the editors who previously voted in favor of deletion and the DRV proposers, and, honestly, I haven't the slightest idea why. At this stage it would probably be preferable for some folks who weren't involved or invested in the previous DRVs to weigh in. Or at least for them to point out why the standard goes one way but not another before calling editors "deplorable" for simply proposing it. KingForPA ( talk) 01:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Keep as per DRVPURPOSE #3, new information. There is pretty clearly now sufficient coverage here to establish notability. I am appalled by the views of S Marshall who I generally respect a good deal. NPOL does not forbid articles on unelected candidates when ther is coverage to establish notability, and if it did it should be changed promptly. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's not NPOL that motivated my view, but annoyance at the blatant attempt to brute force an article in the run up to an election. The motivations of these editors are transparently political. I'm also peeved about the wall of replies to everyone who disagrees and the sense of entitlement based on OSE. I strongly hope that the closer of this DRV will read the previous discussions and take into account all the views expressed there, because people shouldn't need to copy/paste their !votes into the next discussion a couple of weeks later in order to be given weight: that's not fair at all.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This argument has nothing to do with the GNG-passing merits of this topic nor the new coverage that occurred after the previous discussions. And the primary arguments to allow re-creation is this toic easily passes GNG, the new GNG-passing coverage occurred after the early discussions and there most certainly will be more. Saying the argument to allow re-creation is just OSO is a straw man. And what's with this "transparently political" accusation? You're the only person who typed anything about political motivations. What exactly are you accusing editors of? Oakshade ( talk) 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse at this point, because the repeated appeals when nothing has changed look like an attempt to bludgeon the process by vexatious litigation. I don't think that this is a candidate for DEEPER, only a candidate for the US Senate, but we should not encourage using general notability to provide articles on candidates who were not notable before the campaign started. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• In fact a great deal has changed. Since the AfD there has been GNG-passing coverage from USA Today, The Hill and Vox. [2] [3] [4]. The only reasoning in the DRV for not re-creation was it's been "too soon" whilst completely ignoring the changed GNG-passing coverage. The coverage supplied by the nom is even newer since the DRV incling The Daily Beast coverage from literally yesterday. [5]. Of course there are repeated appeals because there is repeatedly more GNG-passing coverage of this topic being created. It will be only willful ignorance to believe the GNG-passing coverage is going to stop. To say "nothing has changed" is flat a out falsehood. Oakshade ( talk) 20:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation per DES. New sources mean it's well (well) over the GNG bar. Pushing for deletion based on a policy or guideline that doesn't exist isn't really reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 05:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse, salt, and list at WP:DEEPER with a six-month ban on renomination, for the reasons given by User:S Marshall. There is also a systemic bias issue at play here; would a candidate for office in (say) Ireland, Uganda, or Pakistan get this kind of coverage? No. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Edit to add: Happy to compromise on a ban on renomination until November 4 per Hut 8.5 below. Stifle ( talk) 08:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Stifle:, she clearly meets the GNG--I don't imagine that is in debate. Could you point to the policy/guideline that you feel applies here? I can't think of hardly any topics with quite this level of coverage that we don't allow an article on. It's just really weird to me. And, frankly, a huge disservice to our readers. Hobit ( talk) 09:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Quite simply, it's an abuse of process, relisting over and over until you get the result you want. Stifle ( talk) 12:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • That's not what's happening here. All the "relisitings" have been from different editors who were not involved in the previous discussions who came across this topic that should have an article and were surprised it didn't so they created a revised discussion with new GNG-passing coverage. There's not "abuse of process" by anyone. Oakshade ( talk) 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
        • It's an abuse of process to repeatedly relist a discussion thereby exhausting the community's capacity or energy to object. Changing to strong endorse. Stifle ( talk) 08:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • Flat out false. Not one editor has repeatedly relisted this topic. All the discussions have been opened by different editors uninvolved with previous discussions as GNG-passing coverage of this keeps increasing. Oakshade ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and I suggest a moratorium on any further listings until the 4th of November, by which point either she will be unambiguously notable or people will have less of an incentive to write about her. This is the third time this has been to DRV in just over a month. If you don't get the result you want it isn't OK to start the discussion again shortly afterwards with almost identical reasoning. The issue with the article isn't the lack of GNG-passing coverage, so coming here with more sources like those won't help. Hut 8.5 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The result of the AfD is clear and I am experiencing a case of Dejavu. Perhaps live with the result? And if there is new information to establish the notability - recreate. But I suggest a waiiting period, and significant RS Lightburst ( talk) 15:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Nobody has claimed the AfD result wasn't clear. The DRV is about an abundance of new GNG-passing coverage that has occurred since the AfD. See WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. Oakshade ( talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

the problem is that folks don't seem to think that meeting the GNG is relevant here. She met the GNG before in spades, so more sources aren't going to help. Not that I agree with that, but there you have it. Hobit ( talk) 08:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Almost as if there's some sort of implicit bias at play. Huh! KingForPA ( talk) 21:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Lightburst: There is a massive amount of new sources. [6] will show you those in the last week. I'm seeing [7], [8] (that's a Boston NPR station, this election ain't in Boston), [9] (she's not the topic, but is covered), [10] (again, only a fraction of the topic). Those are the national news sources. Plus tons of local ones. All since the last DRV (those were all in the last 6 days). There will be more that that over the next 3 months--her election (or not) will likely determine which party controls the Senate, which will have a significant impact on the short-term future of the US. So she will continue to see coverage at a significant rate. Hobit ( talk) 09:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Keep per DRVPURPOSE #3. Greenfield easily passes the general notability guidelines presently. Calidum 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Third DRV in a month. Nothing fundamental has changed. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• The continuing increase of GNG-passing coverage demonstrating this topic passes GNG with flying colors has fundamentally changed. Oakshade ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Certainly something has changed: the increased coverage. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, there has been a bunch of new coverage since the original AfD and the DRV's, so the situation has clearly changed. Also, this person may have been notable prior to their campaign. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 03:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it's already full-protected as a redirect. Nothing has changed here. I don't see the sources provided suggesting an article should be created. Most are on the race itself. The points made in the AfD still seem to apply. Recommend a moratorium on further DRVs until October. This is both before the election, and will allow time to consider new sources if they should arise, otherwise perennial requests of this are too much. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep, in light of changes/new coverage. Djflem ( talk) 19:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

V. H. Lewis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I requested the WP:NAC closer of this discussion to reopen the discussion and leave it to an administrator to close (or potentially relist), which they have declined to do. All of the keep arguments in the discussion entirely hinge upon a false notion of presumed, automatic notability because of the subject's involvment with the Church of the Nazarene as General superintendent. However, there is no presumed notability on English Wikipedia for religious subjects. As such, I feel that those opining for article retention are making up their own notability guidelines, while ignoring actual notability guidelines that are in place ( WP:BASIC, WP:GNG).

Upon discussing this matter on the user's talk page ( link), I feel that:

• This closure is aligned with elements of WP:BADNAC, and that the closer has inaccurately assessed the sources
• The user based their assessment upon counting sources presented in the discussion, but did not fully assess, or inaccurately assessed, the independence and reliability of those sources, and whether or not they provide significant coverage.
• At the time of closure, per discussion on the closer's talk page, it seems that the closer was unclear about how a nomination for deletion at AfD is applicable toward the deletion discussion, existing essentially as an !vote for deletion.
• The close is characteristic of a WP:SUPERVOTE, that reflects the preference of the closer.

At their talk page, the closer stated, "after your vote, I count no less than ten sources that are not passing mentions and suitable for the article" ( diff), but I feel that this assessment is wholly inaccurate, as demonstrated per the table I have provided below which provides an analysis of those ten sources. Per my objective assessment, none of the sources provided at the AfD discussion actualy establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Only one independent, reliable source, published by The Oklahoman, actually provides what may be considered by some as significant coverage. However, I feel that this article falls a short of that requirement. Regardless, notability hinges upon a subject having received coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, not just one.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[11]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene		This has a written work by the subject. This is a primary source that does not establish notability.	✘ No
[12]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene		~ Has some mentions, but this is a primary source, and is not usable to establish notability.	✘ No
[13]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene			✘ No
[14]			Has a one sentence quote from the subject. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[15]		An unreliable genealogy website. At the AfD discussion, it is assumed that this appears to be from a reliable source ( diff), but no proof of this assertion was provided. Furthermore, in the edit summary, the user stated, "Found a paid for death notice" regarding this source.	~ Has some coverage, but the source is unreliable	✘ No
[16]			The subject's name is mentioned within a single sentence. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[17]			Contains one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[18]	A primary source: a website "initiated by the global Church of the Nazarene" ( link)		Contains a link to works by the subject, which are primary sources	✘ No
[19]	A primary source: the Church of the Nazarene website		Mentions the subject within a single sentence that is about another person.	✘ No
[20]			~ Consists of routine coverage and mentions about the subject holding a meeting and prayer service. Also has two very short paragraphs about the subject later in the article, consisting of a total of four sentences. Some may argue that this comprises significant coverage, but I feel that it falls below the threshold.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

• I differ slightly from Northamerica1000 in that I think the problem with the close is that Malcolmxl5's contribution needs to be understood as a "delete", or at minimum, a "do not keep". I know he didn't put a word in bold and this means you need to read his contribution in context and in the light of policies and guidelines to get what he's saying; but it's a closer's job to do that.
  With the debate read in that light I don't see a keep outcome as within the acceptable discretionary range for a closer. So I get to overturn but I get there via a different route from Northamerica1000.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but very half-heartedly because I would have preferred no consensus. Even delete would not have been wrong. (1) It is not the job of a closer to "fully assess ... the independence and reliability of those sources, and whether or not they provide significant coverage" – that is for the participants to opine and the closer must assess whether the participants have formed a consensus. Let me concede, however, that for !votes such as "delete there are no references" when, possibly, references have not been presented as footnotes, or "keep there are plenty of references" when there are none – these should be discounted or dismissed. (2) WP:N is a guideline and admits of occasional exceptions. The purpose of the specific criteria is to guide us towards assessing whether the article is adequate under the more underlying considerations of WP:WHYN. This is a matter of more subjective judgement. (3) Must we reject presumed or automatic notability? What about populated places or academics? It is worth pondering the WP:Inherent notability essay and its nutshell: "Ultimately, the community decides if a subject is intrinsically notable." (4) I read Malcolmxl5's remarks as being helpful comments tending delete but Tyw7's nomination I take as a firm delete though written delicately so as not to offend the subject's associates or the article's editors. (5) The AFD discussion left me in some doubt what any consensus might be and it should not have been closed by a non-admin (pace S.Marshall) – but we normally do not overturn such closes solely on grounds that they were not made by an admin. (6) I think this is a thoroughly good matter to have brought to DRV. The article looks reasonably OK on the whole but Northamerica1000 presents a powerful case that it does not meet the listed GNG criteria. Thincat ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I participated in this deletion discussion; I was the last commenter who voted keep and added the a few other sources, and updated the article with them. I was of the opinion that there was presumed notability for this position, and the sources I brought were mainly to confirm the fact that he *did* in fact hold this position (answering nom's earlier question in the AfD). I guess it depends on if the role has presumed notability. Awsomaw ( talk) 18:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think we have enough to confirm he has the title, so we meet WP:V. That said, WP:GNG isn't met. I don't know enough about the area to say if his position, now verified, is enough to say he should have an article. I'd personally lean toward "yes". And the discussion seems to lean in the same way. So at the least, NC is probably within discretion based on WP:IAR. I'm a lot less sure keep is. Hobit ( talk) 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Given it's a NAC and it's actually an unclear discussion once strength-of-argument is taken into account, I'd probably lean toward relisting as the right outcome. The closer wasn't crazy to think NAC was reasonable, but it probably isn't here. Hobit ( talk) 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I was about to say Endorse, and then was about to say Weak Endorse, and have concluded that this is a solid Endorse. I think that general notability is awkwardly vague, and that special notability guides are more useful, and I think that special notability guides should be self-implementing, without the folderol of saying that they are normally presumed notable. However, there are two concerns. First, there isn't an actual special notability guideline for bishops, but an Outcomes essay, which is not the same. Second, this was a non-admin close, and sometimes those are good, and sometimes they are less good. The Outcomes essay does indicate that the community normally considers diocesan bishops to be notable, and he was the equivalent of a diocesan or archdiocesan bishop. In this case the closer had both rough consensus and the history of outcomes. So the appeal is saying that either that the non-admin closer should have supervoted to disregard a rough consensus, or that the non-admin closer should have left it for an admin closer to supervote to disregard a rough consensus. The arguments about verifiability, at this point, are just religitation, or a complaint that the closer didn't supervote. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Robert McClenon. Stifle ( talk) 08:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist it isn't reasonable to expect the closer to do their own analysis of the sources, as they're supposed to defer to the participants on this. However I think that if the OP had posted the above source analysis in the AfD then it would have made a significant difference to the outcome. Certainly a well-argued case that the subject doesn't meet the GNG should carry more weight than an assertion that the subject is notable by virtue of holding some position which isn't listed in an SNG. Hut 8.5 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse. I would have closed as "no consensus" given the relative weakness of the "keep" !votes, but there is no way this could have resulted in deletion without a WP:SUPERVOTE from the closer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and reclose Looking through the close, it appears to be a WP:BADNAC. There are 3 keep positions and 2 delete positions in a discussion about sourcing. While I think this could only be closed as no-consensus or keep, it would have been preferable for this to be closed by an administrator. -- Enos733 ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. None of the sources presented in the AFD demonstrate significant coverage. They prove he exists, but they are not enough to establish that he is notable. Calidum 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Void close. This kind of looks like it should have been No Consensus, but my biggest concern is this talk page conversation. It's possible I'm reading more into Puddleglum2.0's words than I should, but it sure sounds like he's she's analyzing the sources, which is not the closer's job. The closer's job is to distill the thoughts of the AfD participants. Was this a WP:SUPERVOTE, or is it simply that, backed into a corner, the defence of his her close wandered in weird directions? Hard to tell. Taking a step back, a closer should not be so invested in their close that they feel the need to dig in their heels, as Puddleglum2.0 did here. Sometimes I'll do that, when it's obvious that it's just a WP:SPA, WP:COI, WP:UPE, putting up a fight. But, in this case, it was an experienced editor, who I assume has no relationship with the subject, making reasonable arguments in a closely-decided case. Performing a WP:NAC is essentially acting as a deputy admin, and such editors should strive to meet the highest ideals of moppery. Seeking second opinions and/or review of ones own actions is an important part of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ RoySmith: I'm really sorry it looked to you like I was digging in my heels - I was legitimately curious as to why NA1000 thought that my close was improper - after only two replies I did suggest we get a third opinion, becuase I still wasn't quite convinced, and I like to know why I'm wrong so that I have the opportunity to learn from my mistakes. If I had seen the table NA1000 put together above, I probably would've just done it there - I did not analyze the sources like that, as you said, that's not the closers job. As I said multiple times in that thread, I'd be more than happy to reverse the close if I see the reasoning. Just being an admin or experienced editor doesn't give anyone the ability to simply tell a lesser editor to reverse their close - I think it should still be explained. Again - I'm sorry I appeared so stubborn - that was definetely not the intention. Thanks for your comment! By the way, I am female, I'd appreciate the appropiate pronouns. Thanks! Cheers. -- puddleglum ^2.0 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for alerting me to the pronoun issue; I have fixed that. As for the rest, I don't think of non-admins as "lesser editors". But, there are things you learn by experience. The process for electing admins is far from perfect but it is our way of saying, "This person has enough experience and accumulated wisdom to be trusted to make the big decisions". Likewise, WP:NAC is our way of saying, "Well, sure, but there's also a lot of other stuff we can trust people to do that doesn't require quite so much experience and accumulated wisdom". Think of if this way; if somebody else comes along and recloses this the same way you did, then you get validation that you were right all along. If they close it differently, well, nobody really knows what that means; even among highly experienced people, there's going to be a range of opinions, and different people will look at the same discussion and come to different conclusions. Such is life. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Lightstep, Inc. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was purely written using references from various reputed news agencies. Not even a single line was written without reference. I don't know how it was Unambiguous advertising or promotion? Lightstep,_Inc. has raised more than $40 Million in fundings and this story has been covered by many big and reputed news agencies. Such an organization will inspire many people so I think the article deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theproeditor7 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• endorse'- Seraphimblade's rationale on their talk page why speedy was appropriate seems convincing to me. Reyk _YO! 23:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G11 based on the examples quoted by Seraphimblade of marketing buzzspeak. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G11 I dealt with a request to undelte this at WP:REFUND#Lightstep, Inc., and declined it there. I explained in my response why this was unacceptably promotional, including my comment that The entire article read as if it were a company brochure. It may have been factually accurate, but it was highly promotional, and seemed to rest largely on press releases and stories copying closely from press releases. I stand by that statement. Of course, there would be no bar to starting over, preferably in draft space, with a neutral version, properly sourced to independent sources. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• I wouldn't be surprised if this were (unsophisticated) UPE with a username like that. Endorse. MER-C 09:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Surely it's just someone who was inspired by a new startup corporation halfway round the globe and registered an account in order to promote it.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • And their tagbombing and attempt to speedy delete that company's non-startup competitor is just as coincidental. — Cryptic 10:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply