Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KoodibooK (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KoodibooK

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

This orphaned article may not meet notability requirements. It was previously AfDed but received no comments. — Rod ^talk 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find signficant coverage about this to establish notability. There is some local Bath coverage in the Bath Chronicle like this article, but coverage in a local paper is insufficient. --Whpq (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forrester Research link is paywalled and could be the most solid reference, but it isn't clear whether it is a reference about the sector or this firm, with the former most likely. Other than that, searches are just turning up local start-up coverage. No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability found. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The preamble verbiage available without payment clearly indicates that the report is on the sector. But even if it were about Koodibook itself, I'm don't believe that it would count towards notability. Forrestor, and similar companies will write research reports on demand. If a Forrestor client asks for a report on something they haven't covered before, they will initiate a report on it if the client desires. I would rely on the Forrestor report for the purprose of verifiability, but I'm not for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:15, 10 July 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.