Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fastly

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastly

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

This article references either simple business listings, routine coverage, non-notable sources, and user generated content hosted on sites such as ComputerWorld and TechCrunch which WP:NCORP explicitly states does not constitute reliable coverage. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open MfD here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fastly Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have COI disclosed here. The page was reviewed through the WP:AFC process and approved by an unbiased third party. WP:NCORP only discourages the use of TechCrunch and similar sources when the article is written by a "non-staff 'contributor'", and that is specifically to weed out paid contributions. Discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard point to this as well, and suggest that the portion of the content from these sites from non-biased sources can be considered reliable. Furthermore, TechCrunch is a major industry publication, and simple common sense precludes a wholesale disregard of it as a source. Computerworld is a 50-year-old tech magazine and the source is reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. Both TechCrunch and Computerworld have editorial oversight. While some of the sources may be regurgitating press releases, others represent a depth of coverage that extends beyond churnalism, and are enough to establish the notability of a company that serves over 10% of all requests on the Internet. The company's last funding round was also covered by the Wall Street Journal, but I chose not to use that reference because the information was adequately covered in non-paywalled sources. --Sykes83 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed as per Kvng. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:43, 17 April 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.