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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glowpoint Inc. (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)

Likely non-notable. A total orphan on the encyclopedia. The five references are generic company pages on finance sites like Yahoo and Google and one press release. A Google search yields a lot of generic company pages, press releases but no notable news coverage, plus an unrelated hotel in Mexico. Raymie (tc) 19:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 21:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is incorrect. The analyst reports listed by Reuters here are not "short company profiles". The page lists a 12-page Reuters Investment Profile of Glowpoint, a 56-page Wright Reports report for Glowpoint, and a 32-page GlobalData "Analysis Review" of Glowpoint among other analyst reports.

    There is also substantial coverage of Glowpoint in Network World, The Star-Ledger, and The Record.

    Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't it that Reuters, et al., offer analyses of every single company noted on major stock exchanges? I would think so, and in such a case these investor reports should be considered technical documents and not factors that establish any notability per se. — kashmiri TALK 08:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.