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 speedy keep. Per the other closures I've made regarding this nom - WP:BEFORE wasn't followed and as always WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, no objections to renomination by anyone in good standing. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actifio[edit]

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

This article has really nothing to write about or talk about except read like a brochure. Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. Not an encyclopedia material at all. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. The way it is written not sure it is written by neutral contributor. definitely influenced by company.

Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:

Light2021 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I dislike the apparent origins of the article, and its present promotional tone that does have parallels to Veeam, it does appear to be backed with credible sources such as Forbes and The Wall Street Journal. Efforts would be best placed in scrubbing out the promotion (as I started to do already [1][2]). - Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As written on nomination "standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here " What can we do? does it really make it an encyclopedia material and people really care about this company. I am doubtful anyone even know this company beyond their positioned/ Target customers (for them this is even written) or shareholders. :) Light2021 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is quite honestly speedy material considering how literally blatant it is, regardless of a blatant involvement of whatever, because even what is listed was still advertising-founded and there's simply not enough of what we would need, both non-PR and uninvolved by the company's own materials. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: continue Micro level, non-significant edits are made by J. M. Pearson. Looks related to this company as there are hardly any other contributions. Clear Sign of COI. No one made such changes for any article except if it is their own. One vote is definitely compromised. (just my opinion) Light2021 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Is there any nice way for me to say, don't be ridiculous? My changes are not at all insignificant. I do think you speak rashly. I am not related to that company, please don't risk offending well intentioned contributors with possible insults. I'm not angry, just telling you. Be fair minded and informed before you speak ill of others, that's my advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Note And let me point out, if I'm only making non-significant changes then what does that say about the nfd? If that's all that was needed then maybe that editor made a mistake in the first place with that nfd? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Speedy Keep I'm going to agree with the editor below. I think this article is out of the woods. There's still room for some improvement, but I don't think a delete should even be considered. But given my inexperience I accept I could be wrong.
Speedy keep Once again, an egregious lack of WP:BEFORE from the nominator who still doesn't understand notability criteria. Non-trivial, RS coverage easily addresses WP:CORP; one sample: "Actifio Joins $1 Billion Valuation Club With $100M Investment" (from The Wall Street Journal). There are plenty of other non-press release articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 1 November 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.