Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PathSolutions (2nd nomination)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PathSolutions

[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)

Fails WP:COMPANY. This article was previously deleted at AFD in 2009 and again in 2016 as spam under WP:CSD#G11. Over the course of eleven years, this company has still not garnered significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The references in the article, and searches to yield better results, show nothing but primary sources, press releases, and self-published blogs by enthusiasts. Aside from a single review from InfoWorld, PathSolutions has gone almost entirely unnoticed. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - Over 6 articles and product reviews have been published by 3rd parties showing it is in thei news; about 5 in the past 2 months. They can be gathered and placed at the end of the article. ( This was me.) Goldenrowley (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles I found were mainly press releases or mentions and do not fit the definition of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - Article was improved with articles on the product, from different authorities, printed in many different publications. Goldenrowley (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has already expressed his "keep" argument above. Ə XPLICIT 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. the improvements to the article happened after CNMALL commented, so I was just trying to respond to his/her concern.Goldenrowley (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the most reputable coverage I found from "Yahoo! Finance" reprinting Business Wire. But isn't that pay-to-publish? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the news cited in the article that are full feature articles: Tom Hollingsworth - GestaltIt. (2 separate articles); Justin Warren; Beggy Elliott; Rob Coote; Christopher Kusek; Zoe Rose; and Twit.tv. On Twit.tv, It was a news story one day. Some of them have huge followings. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Interop99 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interop99: it is WP:NOTAVOTE, you must provide a reason. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles referenced in SOC discussed various aspects of PathSolutions demonstrations at Security field day event with multiple perspectives on product set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interop99 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that: a) Interop99 is a single-purpose account; b) the references added in this edit are nothing more than blogs and a stream, which are "largely not acceptable as sources". We have yet to see any user produce credible reliable sources that cover this company to any considerable extent. Ə XPLICIT 07:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources from Interop99 look like independent experts in the field; I looked up Christopher Kusek from Twitter at Twitter.com/cxi and he has 21700 followers. twit.tv is a large independent broadcast company (not just a 'stream') who airs a weekly podcast show on technology and so was my best pick as a source that meets all criteria. IMHO, just because a company was deleted 2 times in the past, doesn't mean it can't attain importance later. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to cite this policy: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. " Goldenrowley (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of Twitter followers does not make someone an "expert". Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to verify the blog author's status as expert-in-field, look at LinkedIn. They're all passing as tech cybersecurity experts: Justin Warren^[1] Christopher Kusek^[2], Zoe Rose^[3]. Becky Elliott^[4] I also added a recent quote from Brian Chee from Twit.tv that this product was one-of-kind, Podcaster, Senior Contributing Editor for InfoWorld. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." You have not provided such evidence. Aside from Brian Chee, who happens to be the same author of the InfoWorld article, his quote from TWiT.tv does not present any significant coverage of the company, and is largely what he wrote in IW article to begin with. Ə XPLICIT 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have a clearer picture what you are looking for then. Twit.tv is both independent and a huge company. I know Curtis Franklin is an established subject matter expert because he writes lots of pieces for darkmatter.com He is one who did the piece on PathSolutions call simulator recently. Brian Chee is also a subject matter expert/host at twit.tv. How come everyone is ignoring twit.tv ?Goldenrowley (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2020 (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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]