Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five9 Inc

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. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five9 Inc

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

Released September 24, 2009, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Five9 Inc. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#A7. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for creating and keeping the page are documented on the talk page for the article: Talk:Five9_Inc The press release links have been removed. There is a feature article specifically on the company in the regional media, and several analyst and media mentions of the company. The products are not specifically mentioned by name, as they are in Avaya which evidently is not a candidate for deletion. There is an academic reference provided supporting the notability of the company's technology as a whole, and thereby the notability and significance of the company. It's not a WP:SPA account - take a look at call centre to which I contributed an academic citation in support of the various types of call centers, and added encyclopedic, not promotional, information about premise-based versus virtual call centers, supported by the academic reference, thereby improving the article.

Also, the criteria in WP:CORP seem to be at odds with each other, on the one hand, it suggests that multiple minor media mentions are sufficient to establish notability, but when I added those in, they were either edited out by someone else or decried as "PR" in violation of WP:CORP If a media outlet wants to do a story on an industry, it's quite likely they are going to talk to marketing or PR reps for the companies they cover in the story. [[User: Predictive (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)— Predictive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Per nomination, the sources are trivial mentions or PR releases. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP defines "trivial mentions" this way: "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." If you read the references, it is more than simply reporting meeting times, shopping hours, publishing telephone numbers, etc. There are no references to press releases (PR) in the current article.Predictive (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. This would also include quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. No substantive sources found. GlassCobra 16:06, 14 October 2009 (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.