Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amplitude (company)


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Amplitude (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:TOOSOON non notable company that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search shows only this good source, which isn’t enough to show WP:SIRS met, as there isn’t significant coverage, one good source for isn’t enough, asides that we have nothing but a plethora of press releases & mere announcements. WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. The sources used in the article itself corroborates a before as it is just a collection of user generated sources, sponsored posts and press releases. Furthermore when determining notability we are reminded that numericals aren’t a factor to be considered. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the company's notability, though the first version of the page was somewhat unclear. I have made several additional edits to the page to reflect the broader and deeper public discussion about the company. Specifically the company's choice of a direct listing discussed in the source you noted here as well as here, here, and here; as well as the company's choice of an early IPO discussed here. Please let me know if there is something else I'm failing to understand. --Jjersin (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, there are a number of in depth third party sources discussing this company and its products. A small sample of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, --Jjersin (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the guidelines, which Celestina007 linked to, publicly traded companies almost always meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I all high quality sources do not need to be reflected as references in the article, but many good sources do in fact exist as is typical in these cases. --Jjersin (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — The first source is a self published source, the second has no editorial oversight, the third has no reputation for fact checking. I could analyze all of them if you want me to but they all are unreliable sources. See WP:RS. Furthermore WP:REFBOMBING isn’t going to demonstrate notability, lastly WP:NCORP remains the criteria to meet if an organization is considered notable or not. Once more I want to note that WP:TOOSOON is major factor here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment — Below are the 7 new sources brought forward & as we can observe they do not substantiate nor prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment — Above are the 7 new sources brought forward & as we can observe they do not substantiate nor prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Response
 * — I'm not trying to "refbomb"; I only noted that the 7 sources in my second comment were in depth. I shared them because you explicitly stated that WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. However, I believe those responses disprove that assertion, -- in the WP:ORGDEPTH page which you linked to yourself, the section "Examples of substantial coverage" includes "An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product", which accurately describes those 7 sources and many others.
 * — More importantly, the 5 sources from my first response were not included in your source assessment table. As I stated, I believe they all meet the WP:GNG requirements.
 * — There are plenty more sources about this company, but after reading every "WP:" page you've linked to, I cannot understand how I haven't already proven that the page meets notability guidelines. I have listed 5 sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which appear to be clearly independent, reliable, and containing significant coverage, and 7 more sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) which appear clearly independent of the organization and in depth. If you still believe this article does not meet WP:GNG, please review these 12 sources for those specific attributes. --Jjersin (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Response - I still haven't gotten any response to my very first comment so I created another "Source Assessment Table" for the sources you missed plus a few others I found. I believe this is a notable company, and I'm confident I can find even more high quality sources than this.

--Jjersin (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * added another source (Forbes). Also I don't know if this matters, but I found two existing articles that mention Amplitude and a third that cites Amplitude. I added another where it made sense. existing mention 1  existing mention 2  mention 3  citation from Amplitude --Jjersin (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Multiple reliable sources independent of the topic have been presented that show significant coverage, and the article therefore appears to meet WP:GNG. –– FormalDude  talk  01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two comments. (1.) I'd like to see a revised source assessment table done by an independent editor such as, rather than by the creator of the draft. I can't do one myself because of paywalls, but I see that has rated this one as "independent" although it is based on statements by the subject's CEO. (2.) The first sentence of draft states that the company is "focused on analytics products", and gives the names of three such products. But it nowhere explains what they do. This leaves the impression that it does the same kind of stuff that Cambridge Analytica notoriously did.   Maproom (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't think of someone getting that impression, but added a small section about the company's products to address your concern. --Jjersin (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented a source assessment table evaluating the additional sources below. –– FormalDude  talk  08:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Source assessment table by User:FormalDude:


 * Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources has been identified. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Formally recording my vote. Per comments from Cullen and FormalDude, as well as source assessment table from FormalDude (and also mine) there are multiple sources which are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. -- Jjersin (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has significant coverage from reliable sources such as CNBC, Article written by Forbes Staff, San Francisco Business Times, The Economist, Reuters, and more. It meets WP:NCORP guidelines. It has improvement opportunities. Deletion won't be the right choice for it Mommmyy (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep  and revise drastically. This is an unusual case:   We normally do not consider that references only about funding offer significant coverage. This seems to be an exception, because the funding itself is what the company seems to be notable for.  Highly promotional by the usual standards: .  an emphasis throughout on what the founder chose to say he "believed" " ; overuse of company name; unsourced adjective of excellence throughout ;  repeated use of company and product name. These must be  fixed, but it seems possible.   DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.