Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EclecticIQ (2nd nomination)

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) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EclecticIQ

[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)

Delete I'm aware this recently passed an AfD (closed as "Speedy Keep" by nominator instead of withdrawing the nomination) but with only one commentator (!voting "Keep") this was hardly examined. I've looked at the references and not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are marketing/PR churnalism relying on extensive quotations/interviews from founders/officers and fail WP:ORGIND or not in-depth/significant coverage failing WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JC7V7DC5768 and Ifnord who commented on previous AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:HighKing, well this will be a hard one to analyze. Going through references:
1. Short mention, not a significant one
2. Locked behind an account creation (I am not going to bother doing a one just to analyze a thing, nor will a regular Wiki reader)
3. Short mention in a PDF (downloaded it)
4. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b9b/00a2dbf6ae467395fac917e0f7b73cc3e7aa.pdf is a proper link for this, passing mention
5. This one *could* be a possible source to use on? It could be categorized as extensive quotation though
6. Locked behind an account creation
7. Passing mention
8. Nope. Nada. Blog.
9. Passing mention
10. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all.
11. ANOTHER locked behind an account creation, sigh.
12. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all, but I assume it is another passing mention
13. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all, but I assume it is another passing mention
14. Nope. An entry in a Digital Marketplace database is not going to cut it.
15. A mention in a list.

So I have come to the point only references number 5 and 8 could serve to notability, and even that is a very shaky case at best. Leaning towards delete for now unless someone adds to what I just said (especially in finding how the 6th reference covers the subject which I cannot access properly). Nothing to find in my searches. The creator of this article surely went to great lenghts to prove notability, but I don't think he or she succeded. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I analyzed the reference 8 and in the end it turned out to be a blog (possibly even promotional in nature). Fails WP:NCORP by a good margin. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jovanmilic97:, nice quick analysis. My view is that both No. 5 and No. 8 are based on a company announcement (both even use the same photo) and is "dependent coverage" failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should have known that was the case HighKing, thanks for that link. It is beyond a clear delete now, both sources are on the level of WP:ROUTINE. The 8th reference even says Thomas Ohr is the "Editor in Chief" of EU-Startups.com and started the blog in October 2010., so it has no value towards WP:GNG even as blogs are not reliable. Just another non notable company Wikipedia page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:CORP. I think this is definitely a case of WP:PROMO violation as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I based this on the English references alone. There are some others out there but not sure if the publications would qualify as reliable or not. I find brief mentions, general announcements, and quotes, but nothing significant that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotionalism only on a nn company. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotionalism . And if a cumputer security company has nothing more to show for itself than a list of one the top 500 companies in the field, it's very far from notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 7 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.