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. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knoema[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested prod. Created by an obvious UPE, the sole sources are a seven-year-old deadlink, a reprinted press release on a blog (don't be misled by the "Guardian" url, this is just a blog hosted by their website), and a couple of links to websites they helped set up. A WP:BEFORE search gives a lot of hits, but they all appear to be either PR churnalism of the company's own press releases or routine mentions in passing. ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian source seems reasonable, being written by a reporter who regular writes for that newspaper on data issues. And it's not difficult to find another independent source. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a second book source. And here's a second item from VentureBeat, based on this from Journalism.co.uk. On another note, it appears to be used as a source in scholarly publications often enough that, arguably, we should have an article on it so that people looking into that source have something other than the company's own website to go by. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Adddendum The dead link can be read at the Wayback Machine, fortunately. It's of dubious editorial status, being written by a "contributor network" member rather than an actual journalist, but the publication is notable, and they do claim that "contributor network" posts cannot be advertorials. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I looked at the new sources listed by the two editors above, and I am still concerned about churnalism. Our own page on Journalism.co.uk says that they are an advertorial site. The book sources are essentially the same thing, Data Science For Dummies and Getting a Big Data Job For Dummies. The popular articles seem to be typical "articles" growing out of company press releases. The scholarly sources are less about the company than about the company's technology, and it looks to me like a better approach would be to have a page about the technology rather than about the specific company. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , on balance. The sources are just sufficient, and the deciding factor is the desirabiity about being flexible in retaining infromation about sources likely to be used at WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revisiting the question, I agree with DGG. XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. comments Lubbad85 (☎) 14:42, 29 April 2019 (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.