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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janrain[edit]

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

very elaborate article on small non-notablecompany. As a "reputation management" company, in has many apparently RE based articles in a local business journal. I don't see anything here that could be considered a reliable source for notability. I understand that this was not written as prmootional, but it does have that effect. Including long quotations from minor awards for "coolest company in Portland" and the like are an interesting way of what would otherwise be puffery. Including multiple years results from "fastest growing" would seem to only indicate that it is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as elaborate the article is, there's not much else and my searches found some links at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing to suggest convincingly better improvement. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantive coverage by ZDNet, Advertising Age, Forbes, The Oregonian. Clearly meets notability guidelines: "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. "I don't see anything here that could be considered a reliable source for notability." Seriously? This company very clearly meets notability criteria: TechCrunch, The Oregonian, VentureBeat, AdWeek, Forbes, GeekWire, Advertising Age, etc, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is the bread and butter of Wikipedia articles: not something that is consistently front-page news, but something that certainly exists and has plenty of coverage. tedder (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with nominator DGG that the article may be a bit heavy on long quotations, that deficiency can be easily remedied by paraphrasing. I strongly disagree that the company is not notable, as TechCrunch, GeekWire, AdWeek and Deloit are certainly nationally prominent business sources for tech firms. As a ten-year-old company, its remarkable early growth ("fastest growing") is part of its history, not evidence that the article should be deleted on WP:TOOSOON grounds. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's looks at some of those sources. The one in Adweek is a disguised press release, complete with a long direct quote from the company. The ones in Telechrunch and Geekwire are not much better. Forbes is worse: an uncritical panegyric that might have been written by the firms ad agency. These sort of sources are in practice based on PR to the extent that they contaminate not just WP, but the industry press. If these show notability, everything is notable. That is s good principle for a directory. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have the brainspace to do the research to determine this company's notability, but I have a procedural question (which I know I should just look up, but I want it here for the record). The article was deleted via prod on November 2, and recreated from scratch (?) on November 20. Should the deleted article not have been userfied and if this is kept, then should it not have a hist merge? Feel free to take this discussion to the article's talk page. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, but one I am unable to answer because I don't know the standard procedure. I would assume history merges are not done for deleted content (at least I've never seen the deleted history of an article resurrected and attached to the bottom of a newly-constructed article), but I would not be opposed to a history merge if others found it helpful/necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

normally the content in such cases is written by the same people. Such is emphatically not the case here. The Prodded article was a quite brief article without the detail, andwithout most of the references, and I think has clearly not been used in constructing the present article. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The article was deleted before I began working on the new version, so I am not sure attribution is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old revisions. -Pete (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 2 December 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.