Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORA.tv

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FORA.tv

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has few references and searching does not turn up significant, independent coverage in RS. MB 04:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are some media coverage references from their website. And another newspaper article around the same time as the CNET/NYTimes articles. StrayBolt (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources offered do not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't see any notability here. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, Mia Watson (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They provid evideo services,and this is merely an advertisement esentially comprising a client list.Such lists are how such companies advertise. The so called reference are inclusions in lists. That Time mentions 5 such services and they are one of them doesn;t show notability. The material in Telechrunch is a press releases--just read it. Them Material at Fast Company is a short comparison table. I suspect that the keeps here are based on people looking at hte reference list, not looking at hte references. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: For the client list, would you prefer RS for all the clients mentioned, more prose, scattered mentions, or no mention of any client anywhere? I did not add the list and I'm not sure the MoS for them so I left it as is for the moment, but I prefer the first option. I think several need to be mentioned to support some of the generalizations of videos and partners. Time had a long list for the year, and a short list which they were featured. The Techcrunch is written by Sarah Lacy so I'm not likely to call it a press release. Tables are condensed forms of information which would be many paragraphs in prose. Yes, read the references. StrayBolt (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even companies offering trivial projects may have hundreds of customers, and any large firm may buy essentially the same project from many different suppliers. If there is specific notability to a relationship, it can be discussed. Otherwise it's advertising, trivia, or both. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 30 June 2018 (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.