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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DataXu[edit]

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

Article of unclear notability. The article is nothing but WP:ADMASQ Wikicology (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep - Respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. As stated in WP:ADMASQ, "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This article is not Advertising because it is not "used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience...to take or continue to take some action." The article contains no calls to action or attempts to persuade the reader that the company is better or worse than its competitors. The article is written from a neutral point of view, and serves as store of information culled from multiple sources of public record. With regard to notability: a company's history, leadership information, and legitimate product offerings generally meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, cf Cooliris, Codecademy, FindTheBest, and One Kings Lane. In addition to those fields, this article also includes references to acquisitions, notable public recognition, and the launch of a public consortium. Would recommend consolidation of Customers and Competitors sections into overview, but not article deletion. Dhfort (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:COMPANY: Independent coverage is significant: e.g. 65 hits in Google news from what can be considered reliable sources such as Forbes (e.g. this interview), Business Insider (e.g. this article), Yahoo News, and Forrester Research (e.g. this research report). The company has won one notable award (#5 fastest growing company in the US in 2013, which can be verified here). Some of the competitors listed such as MediaMath with similar coverage and revelance (e.g. as per the Forrester Research report) have an article already. I do not see this article as WP:ADMASQ; the article language is not sales-oriented nor it has an advertising tone. AVR (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)— AVazquezR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Article is WP:COMPANY. DataXu sufficiently meets the notability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises and for-profit businesses. The company cites 16 references on its Wikipedia page; its customers include Epson, Ford, Lexus and Sony, among others; and it has offices in eight countries. From their Wikipedia page, with the proper citation included: "DataXu was ranked the fifth fastest growing private company in the U.S., and the "#1 fast growing private company in the marketing and advertising industry" by Inc. in the annual Inc. 500 in 2013."--Bluenote78 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)— Bluenote78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don;t see this as a notable company. The references are mention or press releases. Fastest growing for a small company usually is the equivalent of not yet notable. The award is merely regional. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prefacing this discussion: I am an employee of DataXu, which represents a potential COI, but it should also be noted that I am a Wikipedian of more than 8 years, far longer than an employee of DataXu. I also respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. Notoriety according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPANY includes a definition of "notable" that states that a given company/organization must have multiple first-party, non-regional, reputable sources, which the article more than satisfies with several independent reputable sources. It should also be noted that the '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"', and is not based on ones opinion of a company, but rather the direct reference not related to the product in reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernooder (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Ubernooder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Respectfully disagree with DGG. Inc magazine is a national publication and the ranking is highly coveted. See news coverage of this year's list here. DGG does not provide a definition of "small" so it's impossible to dispute, but according to the Inc 500 results, DataXu's revenue is greater than $100M. Finally, the article's author could easily have provided more than 100 articles written about DataXu from publications as diverse as AdAge, MarketingWeek, GigaOm and Boston Magazine. http://www.dataxu.com/media-coverage/. Skeats111 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)— Skeats111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Adding a note: DataXu includes a Demand-side_platform a category of company considered notable enough to have its own entry since 2012. This entry references an article written by DataXu's long-time CEO, Mike Baker, as evidence of the significance of this category of software company. Skeats111 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DataXu is notable enough within its field. There are references to DataXu on techunch, business insider and multiple (here and here) on forbes. It's at least on the same level as Rocker Fuel and MediaMath. That said, the article has a pitchy tone and should be toned down. Ferrante (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)— Mferrante3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted since most of the above are SPA's. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. DataXu might be evil, but it's certainly notable in technology circles, and of interest to consumer privacy advocates. The article does need to be improved to be more balanced. -- Beland (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited are more than enough to establish notability. However this seems to be a clear case of WP:CONFLICT so I'm going to add the appropriate template to the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 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.