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.  Sandstein  10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platform9[edit]

Platform9 (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)

A very small and non-notable company. The references are the usual routine notices that all new technology companies get. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
since this is a student article, wouldn't it be s good idea if WikiEd helped the people running to become themselves better educated about WP? I recognize the difficulty in getting people to write non-promotionally when their world is filled with advertising but the changes since nomination (apparently by a different student than the one who wrote the initial version) have made it even worse. This does not augur well for the likelihood of further improvements. Ian (Wiki Ed), where can we find a list of other contributions from this class? DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DGG - I managed to misinterpret the page history entirely. (I should know better than to try editing before coffee.) You're quite right. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Course page is here. Full contribs are here Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • You should know better than those Forbes links - those are blog post, not articles from Forbes the RS. Both explicitly state right there on the page "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The other links do suggest there might be substance for an article, but whether it's longer than a paragraph is another matter. But someone could do a rewrite in place easily enough before we finish here ... might be, ahahaha, a student exercise - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Gerard: Well the Forbes articles are Forbes contributor articles, but I do know better that WP:NEWSBLOG often allows these types of sources to be used when the articles undergo the news organization's normal fact-checking process. I wonder if these articles went through such process or not. The statement "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" is surely true, but if Forbes published it, one would think that Forbes editors approved it in some manner. As a business magazine with national circulation in the United States of around 931,558 (a significant readership), I doubt that Forbes would allow tripe to be published on their website. Also, inre the credentials of the authors of these articles, upon viewing the biographies of them, they are professionals in the industry, which is a stipulation of WP:NEWSBLOG for such sources to be usable. North America1000 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if Forbes published it, one would think that Forbes editors approved it in some manner" You might think that, but it's observably false about the stuff they allow on forbes.com/sites - unless it says "from the print edition" or "Forbes staffer", it really is just some random blogger, usually writing a corporate-sponsored op-ed. (I can't find it at a moment's notice, but there's a nice article I read by someone who ghosts corporate op-eds for Forbes blogs as a fabulously lucrative freelance gig.) And yes, many people think Forbes are setting their brand on fire for this. But they are in fact doing it. tl;dr if it's on forbes.com/sites and isn't a paid staffer or "from the print edition", it's some random bozo with a blog; if it isn't, then treat it as an RS. If it's a blogger who is a notable source, then maybe it's an RS - are they, say notable enough to have their own article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- even with the sources above, I believe it would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. For example, the Network World coverage is titled "Platform9 is the latest to ease the container deployment woes" and contains quotes from the founder:
  • “For forward-looking organizations that are taking a containerized approach to applications for greater agility and efficiency, Kubernetes provides a powerful orchestration framework for DevOps workflows,” said Madhura Maskasky, co-founder and vice president of product at Platform9.
This type of coverage indicates to me the company is an up-and-comer, actively seeking publicity, and the subject is not ready for an encyclopedia article yet. "The latest" in the headline above also indicates a run-of-the-mill company, not a pioneer in a given technology. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 18 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.
More