User talk:BlueImpact/Crashlytics
Sources[edit]
- Xconomy is borderline; it's pretty sophisticated, large staff, including an editorial staff, some good profiles; could be RS, I'd probably take it to WP:RSN to be sure.
- Bostinnovation appears to be a fairly fancy blog, but a blog nonethless. Not RS.
- Launch explicitly says it's a blog, and the entire reference appears to be a tweet. Not RS
- None of the sources in the second paragraph of "History" matter, because that paragraph needs to be removed. It has nothing to do with Crashlytics the company, only Chang, the person. As such, it can't be recorded here (though if any of it is missing from Wayne Chang, moving there may be possible.
- Techcrunch is good, probably the best in this article.
- The MHT article is basically just a re-write of the press release, thus not independent enough to verify notability.
- Hackernews is a forum, thus automatically not RS.
So, I see one very good reference (Techcrunch) and one borderline reference (Xconomy). That makes the overall article/subject borderline. It's probably enough to escape speedy deletion, but not necessarily enough to survive a full deletion discussion. So, after editing out the bad stuff, we could take a chance and move it to main space now; alternatively, since this company is so new, it may be worthwhile to simply wait for awhile and see if anything else gets printed about them as they actually develop more products (or their main product becomes more famous). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Qwyrxian. What about Seibert's source on his acquisition? I thought it was relevant since it gave some historical info to the founders (see Rdio and the founders there) BlueImpact (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a judgment call. I personally prefer that info on the bio pages, but others think it belongs on the company pages. So, Seibert and Chang's background could be there (we'd just need to remove the lawsuit part, as that's definitely out of scope). However, if we do include them, which is fine, note that doing so doesn't address the notability issue of Crashlytics (in other words, even if we decide those references are valid, it doesn't answer the question of whether Crashlytics should have their own WP page). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good -- I made some edits. Thoughts? BlueImpact (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a judgment call. I personally prefer that info on the bio pages, but others think it belongs on the company pages. So, Seibert and Chang's background could be there (we'd just need to remove the lawsuit part, as that's definitely out of scope). However, if we do include them, which is fine, note that doing so doesn't address the notability issue of Crashlytics (in other words, even if we decide those references are valid, it doesn't answer the question of whether Crashlytics should have their own WP page). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)