Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexalytics

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 in light of the sourcing pointed out in the latter part of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexalytics

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

Company fails to meet WP:CORP; I am only able to find press releases and minor "A bought B" news bites, with nothing significant to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only "reference" appears to be a disguised press release.--Rpclod (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment the spi owning the article has again readded a great number of press release regurgitation and repackaging sites and primary source links to non notable "awards" from non notable organizations. (and attempted to remove the AfD notice, to boot) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Page Accidental inclusion of Mr. Roebuck's book has been deleted. The only press release deals with non-controversial, numerical facts (ie the number of languages the program is able to process). If this is sincerely unacceptable then it can be taken out without issue. However, that information is widely reported and provable by interacting with company's site. Claiming an award is "non notable" and from a "non-notable" organization is a matter of opinion and not grounds to flag a page for deletion. There was no malicious intent to remove the AfD notice. This message was received today: "This page was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep." That is why the AfD was deleted--It was not without cause. Also, it is untrue that there are a great number of press releases and repackaging sites. A further explanation as to why this was flagged for deletion is requested.

Charleslegros (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Charleslegros:, the entire point of an AfD is to say "I think this page is non-notable, does anyone else agree?" So yes, it's a matter of opinion, one which (currently) is matched by at least one other user, and if the consensus is to delete the page, it gets deleted. As a small point of interest, you added the {{old AfD}} tag yourself, so do not act like removing the AfD notice was any sort of miscommunication. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roebucks book, as it is made clear in the introduction is a mere Wikipedia scraping for which they claim no editorial oversight or accuracy]. As such it fails WP:CIRCULAR and is not a valid source to establish notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some good resources, notably the ones in InfoWeek and #11 (Forbes). There are others that are not of good quality and should be removed, and the whole article needs to be re-written to remove jargon and promotional language. If kept, I will try to get back to it. Warning -- it will end up being less than half the size it is now. (Odd logorrhea from a company that mines content from short messages.) LaMona (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article cited by at least two reliable sources, Xconomy and Information Week and meets the WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs editing there does look to be sufficient coverage here to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:29, 20 May 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.