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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

51degrees[edit]

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

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. I've only been able to turn up one independent source that mentions the company [1], and it's a trivial mention. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise as to why Forrester Research and Glanton do not meet the standard of "reliable independent source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysts are literally sources of sponsored content reports - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Glanton is a self-published source advertising 51Degrees as a service they provide to customers. I can't tell the context in which Forrester 'Research' mentions the company as it's behind a ($349!!) paywall, but again it's an article appearing on their own website, so a self-published source. Joe Roe (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar software providers listed on this site, DeviceAtlas and WURFL, are not nominated for deletion yet their references appear similar in source. Can you assist in providing examples of sources on their pages which could be used as examples for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many articles that do not meet its inclusion standards. That is why we have a process for deleting them. Joe Roe (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources to establish notability. I agree with David Gerard and Joe Roe that neither Analysts or Glanton help establish notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. In addition to sourcing issues, the article reads like an advertorial and is non neutral in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant in its field of device detection. Deployed on 1.5 million websites. Kiwiprof (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is notorious for its marketing stunts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.122.156 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is not notable. No independent reliable sources that significantly cover this topic are available. This appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform - please see WP:PROMO for what Wikipedia is not. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAccording to these comments, 51Degrees is both "non-notable" and "notorious"! Conflicting reasons, amended reasons, and the permitting of competitors, DeviceAtlas and WURFL leads me to suspect foul play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 September 2016 (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.