Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Bounce Exchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is interviews, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability, such as interviews with executives: . Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; please see Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and in general looks to be part of a promotional campaign. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm surprised by the description "advertorially toned". The article accuses the company of rather shady-sounding pop-up tactics in the main paragraph of the lead, sourced to an article that discusses BounceX at length. IP users tried eight times to remove that in January, so someone out there doesn't think this is an ad at all. The rest of the text reads plainly. I find it off-putting in fact, though admittedly I'm not in their target market. On the RS side, there's that article, this rating them the fastest growing software company in America (a fairly nonsensical stat but coverage itself commented on), and Fortune and Computerworld rating it a good workplace. I also wouldn't discount the interview for notability purposes any more than a non-interview article of the same depth. It's the same publication, itself independent of the subject, making the same choice to dedicate attention to them. That's what matters for notability, we just couldn't use the answer portions for verification (of anything interesting). No vote for now but I'm curious on the neutrality question. Mortee (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The advertorial language includes:
 * "In 2015, Bounce Exchange had over 800 customers..."
 * "...uses an automated customer acquisition program called Exit Intent... providing an overlay window that incentivizes the user to stay on the site."
 * "Among other BounceX features intended to convert website visitors..."
 * This is a detailed description of features and benefits, along with how popular the product is, suggesting promotional to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right about the first line, that should go. I also got a bit confused with the last section because of reading old versions of the article. It used to say "The goal of the software is to persuade or force users into staying on the site for a longer length of time than they otherwise would" but "or force" was, probably rightly, taken out. I still read it overall as pretty neutral, but I see where you're coming from. Mortee (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article has indeed been the object of both disclosed and (very likely, see also my remark at the COI noticeboard last month) undisclosed COI editing. But I would like to observe that the efforts to neutralize its effects have been largely successful, as a non-COI editor who has spent quite a bit of effort on this since 2015.
 * In fact, parts of the first and third statements cited by K.e.coffman were added by myself. I disagree with their description as "advertorial": Factual descriptions of what a company or its product does, or concrete information about their market success like the number of customers, are not promotional in nature - on the contrary, they are part of what sets an encyclopedic treatment of such a subject apart from ads or corporate press releases, which usually rather focus on the supposed benefits of the product for the customer.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No keep/delete comments were provided, please continue discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  04:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG handily; I just expanded the article with more non-trivial coverage in independent sources. As for the tone concerns cited in the nomination, I (like Mortee) disagree with them - see above -, and in any case they would not have been a reason to delete the article entirely including the factual information that it provides. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "New York's Bounce Exchange wants to give you a reason to stick around. The behavioral automation software and analytics provider is on a mission to make the internet more polite. By analyzing user behavior--for instance, from where someone enters a site and the amount of time he or she spends there--Bounce Exchange wants to maximize conversion. In other words, it wants to help you turn consumers into customers. ... Bounce Exchange co-founder and CEO Ryan Urban ... ... If you ask Urban what's behind his company's growth, you'll get a boilerplate response: 'It's been very organic, mostly client driven.' The company's first client was online retailer BustedTees. It now counts about a dozen Fortune 500 companies as customers, as well as dozens of popular internet retailers and eight of the world's 10 largest publishers."  The article notes: "BounceX is currently working with over 800 clients that range from startups, such as Handy and Plated, to big publishers such as CNBC, USA Today and TIME. The company has grown surprisingly quickly in the past three years, especially considering that it had only taken in $1.5 million in seed funding prior to this round. Launched in 2012, BounceX currently employs over 100 people (more than triple the number employed at this time last year) and reports millions in annual revenue."  The article notes: "Google-backed UK startup Yieldify is embroiled in a legal battle with US rival Bounce Exchange, which accuses it of stealing Bounce's code and infringing its patents. The increasingly vicious case has now taken an unusual new twist — with Yieldify going on the offensive and accusing Bounce Exchange of patent infringement, using a patent it recently purchased from a company once labelled 'the most hated company in tech' and accused of being a notorious patent troll."  The article notes: "Google-backed London startup Yieldify has reached a legal settlement with a company that accused it of copying code. The accusations, levelled by US competitor Bounce Exchange, prompted an ugly year-long legal battle, complete with counter-suits, threats targeting customers, and name-calling." </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bounce Exchange to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Analysis of sources
 * Inc. -- based on company interviews, not intellectually independent. Sample: "If you ask Urban what's behind his company's growth, you'll get a boilerplate response: 'It's been very organic, mostly client driven.' "
 * TechCrunch -- routine funding news; TechCrunch is so indiscriminate in its startup coverage as to not count for notability.
 * Business Insider -- minor piece of news about litigation between two startup companies; routine coverage which is primarily about another company: "Google-backed UK startup Yieldify is settling with the US rival that accused it of copying code".
 * The rest of the sources are equally unconvincing for notability. Yes, startups generate a lot of press, but we need to look at depth of coverage, which is lacking here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Inc. article contains both independent research and quotes from the company officials. It is good journalistic practice for journalists to interview people affiliated with the article subject. In addition to interviewing the company's founder, Inc. journalist Tess Townsend also interviewed a person independent from the company, technology analyst Rob Enderle. She included his opinion: "However, Rob Enderle, founder of Bend, Oregon-based Enderle Group, says there's something more tectonic afoot. Bounce Exchange has tapped into a market that's only just now emerging, says the technology industry analyst. The marketing world still largely revolves around views and clickthroughs of ads and websites, but companies are starting to think more about conversion. The reasons are plentiful, says Enderle, noting that conversion--for instance, signing a new subscriber or triggering a sale--leads to actual money coming in. While some companies promise ad views, a company like Bounce Exchange is promising a return on investment. 'In theory, the money you pay to them, you get a hard return on,' he says." TechCrunch has editorial oversight, is reputable, and publishes corrections so passes Identifying reliable sources. I consider it a source that contributes to notability. The Business Insider articles provide more coverage about the company's history. The sources provide deep coverage of the subject. They note that Bounce Exchange has "about a dozen Fortune 500 companies as customers, as well as dozens of popular internet retailers and eight of the world's 10 largest publishers", works with "big publishers such as CNBC, USA Today and TIME", has 100 employees, and was founded in 2012. They provide detailed coverage about how Bounce Exchange works: "Instead, BounceX watches the behavior of each user — how they entered the site, how long they’re there, what they’re looking at, and if they’re commenting or sharing, among other metrics — and adjusts the marketing accordingly. Someone who reads multiple business-related articles and shares them on Twitter, for instance, is a much better target for a yearly subscription to TIME than someone who reads half of one article about celebrities that popped up on Facebook." Cunard (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: see my talk page for reasoning

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- I was going to go with keep when I did a search and started getting hits in Google News from what appeared to be reliable sources, but a closer look revealed they were actually blogs and interviews, there are no hard news stories on this company.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and Coffman's subsequent impeachment of add'l of sources discussed in this debate ☆ Bri (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and per the analysis of sources. The content of the articles is not intellectually independent, the purported independent opinion in the Inc article is not the opinion of the author but of an analyst that owns and runs their own small analyst firm that states on the home page "An Internet search of media quotes validates Rob Enderle as one of the most influential technology pundits in the world". Hmmmm ... I'll pass. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - no significant RS here, as others have said, lacks in-depth analysis Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (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.