Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasabi Technologies, Inc.

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi Technologies, Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sourced primarily by blogs or press-releases, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also an issue with promotional language. The similar article was rightly rejected at AfC Draft:Wasabi Hot Storage. Potential WP:COI issue. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there could be a COI here and will warn the article creator. Deb (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned it up a bit and eliminated some of the advertising lingo. I'm not impressed as to notability though. There's the one award, I suppose. Deb (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo -- There's no COI as I understand it! I'm interested in the space (Boston startups) & in contributing to Wikipedia in general! As a follow on, I thought there was sufficient significant coverage (especially compared to similar companies' pages) & a neutral tone. However, if not am happy to revise any overly promotional parts! Just not sure which ones people are referring to. Everything felt like a pretty neutral statement of fact about a new company making an interesting impact on the cloud storage / boston startup scene. Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are several mentions at trusted local media including the Bostone Globe. It also has one reputable mention at Forbes and a brief mention at Fortune. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Forbes article is a "Contributor" item, which is usually not considered reliable. Fortune is a one line mention._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 November 2018 (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.