Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kikin Inc. (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kikin Inc.

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

COI article on non-notable start-up that did not accomplish much before going out of business in 2014. 1st AFD resulted in deletion. Renata (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (CSD G4): Deleted at AfD in Dec 2013, copied to user space and then restored after removing links to the founders' Linkedin pages. The original AfD rationale was not the presence of LinkedIn ELs, but notability of the firm. I see no substantial improvement over the deleted version, so the original decision should re-apply. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The original AfD received exactly one comment. There wasn't much of a discussion. I was not aware of the AfD when it happened. After I noticed it, I contacted the admin who had deleted it, and he restored the deleted article to my user space, after I asked him to. The original AfD seemed to have justified the deletion solely based on presence of the LinkedIn ELs. As such, I got rid of the LinkedIn ELs, and moved the page back. There are multiple third-party references in the articles, that IMHO make it notable per WP:NOTE guidelines. The original AfD appears to be more of an act of deletionist zeal, than thoughtful consideration or discussion. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 18:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: kikin is fairly notable, according to WP:NOTE guidelines. There are multiple references to third-party news articles, that support the notability of kikin, and of some of the products they had developed. I don't think we have a policy of deleting articles about startups that have gone out of business on Wikipedia. Don't the third-party sources in the article show its notability? (Renata, I must say I find your statement of "did not accomplish much before going out of business" unnecessary and tangential to the discussion, and a bit personally insulting. I worked for this company, and the people there worked hard and built a great product, but it wasn't able to gain a lot of traction. This is a fate shared by 90% of startups. I think we should keep the article if anything for the sake of the historical record.) Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on COI/NPOV: I have previously worked for kikin Inc., but my relationship with the subject of the article, did not color my contributions to the article. My contributions to the article would have been no different, even if it had been some other random company that I had no connection to. I think this article has a neutral point of view and is written in encyclopedic style. If you have accusations to the contrary, please point them out specifically so that I or some other editor can actually fix any NPOV-related deficiencies (instead of thoughtlessly deleting the whole article).

I noticed that AllyD has plastered a conflict of interest template to the article, which states, to quote: "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." But AllyD has not left any comments here, or on the article's talk page pointing out specific instances or portions of the article that lack a NPOV. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that a contributor's close connection to an article's subject does not automatically imply bias or a lack of a NPOV. I am fully capable of writing neutrally about things I have a close connection to. >.< Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a lot of references in the article, but none of them really impress me. A bunch of them are to kikin's own (apparently defunct) web site. A couple are to patents (which don't prove notability). The rest are industry blogs and all look like routine coverage and warmed-over press releases. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (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.