Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 November 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vu Digital

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

Non notable and promotional / The refs are PR. Even if it is borderline notable, the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better at this time. Notifying past AfD commenters Joseph2302, WikiDan61, Natg 19, ThaddeusB and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As before. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple independent regional and national sources. Certainly the PR links could be deleted as sources, but TechCrunch, Jackson Clarion Ledger and Mississippi Business Journal remain as valid sources. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MBJ article is an interview with a founder, and as such seen as problematic in light of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Mississippi Business Journal is also a pretty regional source (circulation 5,000), so borderline for the audience requirement. Jackson Clarion Ledger is fine, but mentions the company only in passing. TechCrunch's article is not about the company but about one of its products, and so fails per WP:INHERIT (a company is not notable because its products received coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The notability of an interview is not a generally agreed upon standard. The fact that an interview is made and space devoted to it indicates notability.

(b) The Clarion Ledger is entirely about Vu Digital and the need for their product. The second half of the article is with an independent analyst who describes situations where their technology is needed.

(c) The TechCrunch article is about the company, because it is a single product company. Most startup technology companies are single product for their first 3-5 years. As such, the product and the company can not be separated. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Winslow, George (2015-05-05). "Vu Digital Launches V2D". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
2. Ha, Anthony (2015-05-04). "Vu Digital Translates Videos Into Structured Data". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
3. McDill, Stephen (2013-08-02). "Ridgeland-based Vu Digital gives media content, websites a personal touch". Mississippi Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vu Digital to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk)

I agree with Sbwoodside (talk · contribs) that discussion of the company's product is discussion of the company so helps establish notability. Discussion of a company's history establishes notability. Why not discussion of what the company produces (its products)?
The company has received nonlocal coverage from Broadcasting & Cable and TechCrunch.
My second choice is to merge/redirect to C Spire Wireless, the parent company. Deletion is a poor choice per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Redirect Merge and redirect to parent company C Spire Wireless. Same content can be added at the main article. Mirror360 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:Cunard. The article is compact and concise and passes GNG. I also note that the article went through AfC and also survived a prior AfD.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of high quality references, not convinced of notability. The references are to sources like PRNewswire and local Mississippi media. For a technology product/business, there is a lack of references to any more respected technology sources (e.g. journals, the specialist IT press, reports of industry analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester). SJK (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A national company should have national sources separate from the press releases. This lacks any real sources. Perhaps a local wiki can cover it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect to the parent company, C Spire Wireless? Cunard (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info. DreamGuy (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still support a separate article, I'd prefer a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion so that any useful information can be merged from Vu Digital to its parent company's article, C Spire Wireless, and the redirect can be easily undone if/when Vu Digital has received more coverage about it.
Cunard (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2015 (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.