Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATTRAQT

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  20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATTRAQT

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

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

Company with trivial importance. It is not on the main market of the London Stock Exchange, so that doesn't give notability. Refs are PR, some in disguise, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent AIM-listed company providing search/recommendation functionality to websites. As it is a recent rebrand, it is probably fairer to search on its previous name, Locayta. Highbeam returns various items, though they are routine announcements of firms adopting the software and then the rebranding. Overall, I am not finding the independent in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage such as [1][2][3][4] (there are more). These are all reliable sources, and all the coverage is what I would classify as in depth. Most cover the basic details of the company in addition to whatever event triggered the coverage. (Events being covered is itself significant enough to warrant notability as long as the coverage is in depth, incidentally.) Pinging @Lixxx235: who accepted this at AfC for further input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- thanks for the ping. I normally hate to !vote per ___, but I don't have time to do a proper investigation right now and ThaddeusB looks like he has it covered. Please ping me on further developments. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – a source review indicates that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are sources, but they ares not independent, and give the feeling or promotionalsm .I dont thin this small company's made it yet, , but undoubtedly is hoping that g we will give them the increase in public recognition that they need, DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia anyone can edit and they are often sounding boards for negative issues so it doesn't make sense this article (or any article on Wikipedia) is only promotional in intent. If so they are taking a gamble because anyone can edit their article. Sometimes it's better not to have a Wikipedia article from a promotion perspective. Right now they don't have negative press but they may in the future. I don't worry too much about promotion because it's a double-edge sword (and in this case there are sources but have not looked at them closely). -- GreenC 13:32, 30 December 2014 (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.