Ocient (company): Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – seems like it's based on press releases.  TLA (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the feedback.  The information from the page is from earned coverage in several unpaid articles.  I'm also happy to explain more on context if helpful.  https://venturebeat.com/data-infrastructure/ocient-scales-hyperscale-data-warehouse-for-machine-learning/ https://www.datanami.com/2023/03/10/hyperscale-analytics-growing-faster-than-expected-ocient-says/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/startups/how-startups-grow-their-business-on-googles-open-data-cloud https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/blue-sky/ct-chris-gladwin-ocient-startup-bsi-20160726-story.html 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a link solely focused on Ocient https://thenewstack.io/ocient-makes-the-case-for-coupling-storage-and-compute/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 17:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a good post from tech journalist Chris Mellor that is unpaid and noteworthy.  https://blocksandfiles.com/2022/07/01/ocient-hyperscale-data-analysis/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ocient Computational Center could also be added.  It's at Illinois Tech.  https://www.iit.edu/computing/research/research-centers 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  Analysis of the source posted above: Venturebeat article relies entirely on announcements from the company and interviews/quotes from their execs with no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.  DataAMI article suffers the same flaws.  Fails ORGIND.  Google is a partner company, not independent, fails ORGIND.  Chicago Tribune relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND The New Stack article relies entirely on info provided by the company and their execs and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.  Blocks and Files article suffers the same way.  Fails ORGIND.  The IIT listing is a short company profile, no in-depth information and relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 21:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your time and review.  Because you're looking for more "independent" content, how about being included in this tech analysis: https://mattturck.com/mad2023/ or this independent write through: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thanks-trillion-hyperscale-data-warehousing-takes-flight-kavanagh-pewie/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Independent Content" is not simply content that is published by somebody independent of the topic company, but content which contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation" which is also in-depth.  I'm unable to find any mention of the topic company in your first reference, but as a blog post (self publishing), it is not considered a " reliable source " anyway and would not meet our criteria for establishing notability.  Similarly, LinkedIn is self-publishing and is not considered a reliable source.  Even leaving that aside, the LinkedIn article relies entirely on information from the founder/company and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition at WP:NCORP .  HighKing ++ 21:47, 23 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete