Talk:Intelius

Move article back - article is inaccurate and misleading as is
I think the move was inappropriate, even if a new editor with a coi hadn't been the one requesting it.

Inome is the notable company here, founded as "Intelius" whose name was changed in 2012.

The newly spun-off division of inome, currently called "Intelius" may or may not be notable. The only notability currently is for housing some notable products from inome. --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please post a request in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section on the requests page. Philg88 ♦talk 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never made such a request that I can recall, so started this specific discussion first per WP:MRV. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and requested the move back. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Intelius as article-title: Intelius is the notable name which all the sources are about. Inome is the parent organization, which is not notable and is not synonymous with Intelius, according to reliable sources, as previously discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The company changed their name to inome. I don't think an entity loses their notability when they change their name. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Inome → Intelius – The Intelius Wikipedia page was renamed to Inome under the rational that this was the company's new name. However, the only independent source we have says that Inome was a new umbrella corporation under which Intelius operates. The company still operates as Intelius, Inc. and its website is still Intelius.com. The company is not synonymous with its corporate umbrella and I think it is incorrect to name the article after the corporate umbrella, rather than the company itself. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look more carefully at the sources. inome wasn't created as an umbrella, Intelius expanded and eventually changed their name, transferring the "Intelius" name to a division within the company. That division spun off to become a new company this month. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, I have been straightforward about being confused by the reporting, and I'm still trying to figure out what happened this month. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/meet-billionaire-who-wants-harvest-moon-n70821
 * " In 2003 Jain started Inome (formerly named Intelius), an online database and public records company that has grown into one of the largest information commerce companies, with more than 25 million customers. " --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.geekwire.com/2013/talentwise-spins-naveen-jains-inome-25m-mysterious-investor/
 * "Jain, who founded Inome, previously known as Intelius " --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a breakdown of what the source says
 * Inome was created as "an entirely new business"
 * "Properties that previously were housed under Intelius" are now being housed under the Inome corporate umbrella
 * Intelius "will become a division of Inome"
 * So a new company (Inome) was made, some web properties Intelius owned were transferred to Inome, and Intelius became a division of Inome. Inome is now the parent company of Intelius. "US Search, Zabasearch, Talentwise and Live Family", which were previously operated by Intelius, are now operated by this new company, called Inome, as separate divisions. Oh, the world of complex corporate shuffling. If I go to Inome.com, it just redirects me to Intelius. I'm pretty sure that's the main name. CorporateM (Talk) 23:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's poor reporting and spin. No new legal entity was created, hence Talk:Inome. Sadly, the information at the linked site has been update so the verifying info is no longer easily accessible.
 * " is much more than a simple name change" but it was indeed a name change.
 * "Intelius will become a division of Inome"
 * "Jain said that Intelius is largely identified with online background checks, and because of that it was harder for the company to tout its other offerings, such as the Talentwise service. Under the new entity, Jain said that the company may launch new units or brands in the identity management arena."
 * Look at the other sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=13647613
 * "Inome, Inc., doing business as Intelius, Inc., is an information commerce company that provides on-demand information about individuals, and their histories and connections with others." --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, it's confusing, even more so as I look into what happened this month, but let's focus for the moment on getting some consensus as to what happened between 2012 and June of this year. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's "Inome, Inc, doing business as Intelius, Inc." as stated here, that would still make Intelius the WP:COMMONNAME and Inome the legal name. Wikipedia uses the public-facing name that would be used in casual conversation, as oppose to the name that may be used in a legal document. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're skipping ahead, but I agree. I was under the initial impression that only the Intelius division was sold, but it looks like everything was and they'll continue to use the Intelius name. I expect they'll make the name official within a year.
 * I didn't find any dba filings, but didn't look hard. It would be nice to know when it was filed to add as a footnote. It looks to be very recent. Bloomberg appears to be on top of it, but doesn't provide a history and the page doesn't appear to be archived.
 * Go ahead and move it back whenever you like and then lets see what clarifications are needed in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trying to unravel current state of corp and acquisition
Bloomberg appears have up-to-date information, though is it "inome" or "Inome"? I'm not sure it matters much anymore, but it looks like it is supposed to be "inome" without any capitalization.

I didn't realize inome was doing business as Intelius once again (looks like the switch happened sometime last year), and some of the press is treating them as two different companies when they are not, including Geekwire. So inome dba Intelius was bought, rather than the Intelius division being spun off as a new business or two separate companies being bought out as Geekwire reports. Anyone have a different take on this? --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

URL misdirection
Just realized that the URL link in the top right box showed intelius.com, but redirects to intelius.cr, being further redirected to a page that is - most likely for good reasons - blacklisted: h t t p : / / w w 1. s m a r t t r k. n e t / (spelled thisway to protect it from beeing clicked) Changed to the most likely correct .com (does somebodx know for sure? at least tis pages looks more likely correct) Possibly a typo, possibly intended... who knows. In any case at least one of them was wrong. Anyway, please help to keep your eyes on this to keep URL links "true". Proposal: should there be some kind of automatic verification to detect and flag fake URLS, e.g. with non-matching TLD? Moritz2357 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you caught it. I've left the vandal responsible for it a final warning. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)