Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capillary Technologies


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion here is divided, with several users for deletion stating that the article functions as an advertisement, essentially qualifying for deletion per WP:NOT. Conversely, several users have stated that the company meets notability guidelines, with some stating that promotional tone has been addressed or can be addressed via copy editing. Of note is that the article was copy edited by some users to address promotional tone after it was nominated for deletion. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has arisen within this discussion. North America1000 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Capillary Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally a blatant advertisement not only given the overfocused information, but also the fact it's clear the company contributed to this, in both with its employees and a company account, see "Capillary1", and that's basically sufficient to delete alone with WP:NOT policy. After this, we then consider the fact everything is literally advertising, either published or republished, therefore showing none of it can be taken seriously, and we certainly shouldn't since we know the damages of advertising here. Searches unsurprisingly showed nothing but such blatant PR, therefore the WP:NOT policy still applies. To even explain, note how the consistency of all sources focus with company advertising, and damned in these assured, "The amazing story of this company and what they say" is one of them. SwisterTwister  talk  19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:ORG via substantial coverage in respected business publications. A click of the "news" button at the top of this AFD shows sufficient substantial coverage in business publications . Please do not assert that any editorial coverage in a business publication by a staff writer is an advertisement. Look up the definition of advertisement. It is paid coverage written by the company. The relevant part of WP:NOT says "(NOT)Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. " That applies to this article.  Every editor is free to remove any statement which is promotional in tone or which is not reliably sourced. In fact various editors have worked on the article since a possible single-purpose account created it.  If a likely company account edited an article at some point in its history, along with unbiased unrelated editors, that is not a sufficient ground to delete it. Edison (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply to enhance my nomination, I will state that WP:NOT twice mentions "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, means of advertising companies or anything close to it" and that's exactly what this is, to the letter, in that it goes about company finances, services, who it worked with, its people, etc. None of that is notable and we should not mistake it as such and, as it is, we've confirmed as shown in numerous other AFDs closed as Delete, we cannot confide in these publications because of the sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed. Therefore, we cannot ignore WP:NOT and accept whatever advertising exists, because "it needs improvements" is not taking away this is an advertisement in and out, and those are allowed removal by policy alone.
 * Therefore, now said about the unconfided usability in these sources, there are therefore no actual sources to use because it's all advertising. WP:ORG means nothing if policy is applied, and it's a policy we use every single day. What's once again damning is the sheer fact it's obvious this company used this article as an advertisement and also involved its own employees, that alone is enough for deletion regardless of anything, because as WP:NOT also cites "Wikipedia is not a PR webhost". SwisterTwister   talk  23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam; this information belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

— 122.166.156.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The elements which made the article look like corporate spam are gone in one of the recent edits. The page has improved history section now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.156.47 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep The main concerns with this entry were edits made by an apparent internal employee of the company in question as “Capillary1”, the content which did not have a neutral point of view and links to non authoritative websites. The issues seem to have been fixed now where the Overfocused information written by User ‘Capillary1’ have been removed and general information available on trustworthy news sources has been added, satisfying WP:NPOV. I don't agree with SwisterTwister’s comment stating - ”sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed” since most of the information mentioned on the wiki page has trustworthy and valid citations. According to me, the tone of history section and the rest of the sections seem quite generic and neutral that satisfies WP:NOT. The citations now point to authoritative external sources which are not paid advertisements but trustworthy news coverages and this satisfies WP:NOT. It was also stated that the mentioning of the Financing of the company violates WP:NOT but these are significant events in the company history. A google search makes it evident that there are trusted business publication references and satisfies WP:ORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) - See Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha — TheLastMonk (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment -- two of the "keep" votes comes from single purpose accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, this debate is not a Vote as you said, but a discussion of fair opinions on the article. Secondly, Every account will look like a single purpose account in beginning even after a few edits. Thirdly, since you seem to be an experienced contributor, you must have read the Single purpose account page you must be aware of the community standards of not Biting the newcomers, to focus on the subject matter and not the person. Fourth of all, Please look at the valid points I have made and review the article based on that and help come to a consensus since our collective motive here is to protect genuine and worthy content on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Considering that this is a Singaporean company, I find it extremely suspicious that it has not received significant coverage in the Straits Times (which is pretty much the only broadsheet newspaper here). That led me to look at the sources. Most of them are from Economic Times/Indiatimes which as we have seen here have often published redressed press releases. In addition to that, many of the sources are often routine news of merger/aquisition/product launch. There is not one good article which focuses on the company and explains why it is significant or what impact it has made. The sources are not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Add to that the promo pressure - the article is swamped by SPAs and so is this AFD (and I suspect undisclosed paid editing going on). There is absolutely no need to waste volunteer time on stuff like this - this is pretty much against WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be WP:SPAM & per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * week Delete Article writing is very poor and intends are clearly promotional in nature. But it is known and substantial company to be here if we can keep merely startups who are just started somewhere. It is covered by popular known media as well as material for books. Might be Neutral writing is the right way to keep it. Right now it is written like a company profile nothing else. Improve the content my vote may change. Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down. The company is quite a renowned one and has progressed quite well in last couple of years. The references of the page are to prestigious publications in India and abroad, and it will be hasty to term them as advertisement. Given the nature of Wikipedia to be repository of information, it will behoove to have this organizaion with of course better content. Aseemksinha (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) See Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha
 * "The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down." That is actually a very good reason to delete this page. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's business and Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, "it would be hasty to term them as advertisement" Yet that's exactly what the contents are, nonetheless, as it's all advertising so that compliments the fact of "might not meet the high standards", we never keep articles simply by the basis of "they are known and advanced". In fact, none of the Keep comments have said anything else but "they're important!". SwisterTwister   talk  19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Every source that can be found from a Google search and also the cited references show that the company is Headquartered in Singapore. A little bit of digging in web shows that the company operates globally and has a bulk of its market and operations outside of Singapore which explains why this company is mentioned more outside of Singapore. It also has been cited by trusted sources such as Harvard Business Review, Forbes, Fortune, Gartner, TechCrunch etc which have written in length on why the company is significant, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Therefore Not having references from one particular Newspaper (Straits Times in this case) or from one particular region(Singapore) is not sufficient ground to call an article not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Moreover, the article in its current state seems to have a neutral POV with sources cited even if it has been edited by several SPAs. (SPAs are not against Wikipedia Policies as long as they stick to the code, follow the guidelines and write from a neutral POV). Ashwing (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC) See Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha
 * Keep The sources and awards are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The arguments for deletion are not compelling. If it had a POV problem in the past or even if it still has one now, that is not a reason for deletion. That is a reason for fixing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMathews (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this a policy-based comment? The links above are suggestive guidelines, not policies. SwisterTwister   talk  18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers, is faced with multiple road-blocks in its seventh year of operation. While sources have earlier said that Capillary's co-founder Krishna Mehra is on his way out of the company due to differences with other founders, it is now learnt that a second (of the three) co-founders, Ajay Modani, has also decided to step down. ... Capillary Technologies enables retail marketers to manage customer data, gather insights from the same and personalise engagements through social media, mobile, e-mail, online, and in store channels. The company is backed by marquee venture capital investors such as Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital, and Qualcomm Ventures.  It was also the first Indian company in which American Express Ventures invested earlier this year. Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase. According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's."  The article notes: "Two college buddies drop out of their jobs, tinker around with a few ideas, and come up with just the product customers were looking for. Aneesh Reddy and Krishna Mehra came up with the name ‘Capillary’ before they had any idea what the business would be. But after a couple of early ‘pivots’ around shopping ‘deals’ and licenced, on-premise retail CRM (customer relationship management), they hit the sweet spot: A hosted, pay-as-you-go retail CRM that builds a world of data and intelligence around each customer, using mobile phone numbers as identifiers. No new terminals, no servers, no customised implementations—just actionable analytics, like suggesting an instant 15 percent discount on trousers to a customer who’s buying shirts. ... Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers. ... Till it raised a mammoth Series A funding of $15.5 million in September, Capillary was mostly under the radar, thanks to $1.5 million in angel funding from 17 different investors across the world."  The article notes: "AMERICAN Express Ventures, the venture capital arm of the well-known credit card company, has made its first investment in a Singapore software firm. It has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies. According to US tech blog Techcrunch, the total investment was US$15.5 million (S$19.6 million). Capillary Technologies sells software to help retailers understand customers' buying behaviour. It will use the funds to expand into new markets such as the United States and Australia. ... Capillary moved to Singapore nearly three years ago from Bangalore, India, where it was founded."  The article notes: "LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million in funding from American Express (Amex) Ventures, in what it claims is the latter's first investment in the region. The funds will be used to expand Capillary's services in existing markets including Singapore, India and the US, as well as open new offices in Australia and China this year, chief executive officer Aneesh Reddy told The Business Times. ... To-date, Capillary has raised over $20 million since its launch in 2008. The global CRM software market is forecast to hit US$36.5 billion by 2017, according to global information technology research firm Gartner."</li> <li> The article notes: "CAPILLARY Technologies, a Singapore-based customer relationship management (CRM) start-up, is going places - and literally too. It recently bagged US$14 million in Series B funding - one of the highest amounts by a Singapore start-up - in a round led by US-based Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners. Existing investors Qualcomm Ventures and American Express Ventures also participated, taking Capillary's total funding to over US$30 million to date. The start-up now manages enterprise customers in some 16 countries worldwide, having entered new markets such as the US, Australia and South Africa shortly after it raised US$14 million Series A funding in 2012. ... The start-up's latest clients include Marks & Spencer, KFC Singapore, Lacoste, Keedo and Courts. This brings its total client count to more than 150 major brands across 10,000 retail locations, and total reach to over 100 million consumers globally. With the Series B money, Capillary will enhance its product offerings, enter new markets and expand headcount."</li> <li> The article notes: "Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform. The round was led by Warburg Pincus with participation from returning investors Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners and brings Capillary’s total funding so far to $79.1 million. Most of the capital is earmarked for the acquisition of e-commerce software platform MartJack, which significantly expands Capillary’s online retail capabilities. Capillary also announced the purchase of Ruaha Labs, a machine learning startup. ... Capillary is currently targeting expansion in India, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the United States. Increasing its SaaS offerings means that Capillary now competes more closely with companies such as SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce."</li> <li> The article notes: "Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round. The company, which offers a cloud-based SaaS platform for customer engagement, clienteling, loyalty and social CRM solutions, currently works with over 100 major brands across 10,000 locations worldwide, and just recently entered the U.S. market. Current customers include Pizza Hut, Puma, Robinson’s, United Colors of Benetton, Mothercare, Store21, Sunglass Hut and Nike."</li> <li> The article notes: "Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures. The startup plans to expand into the U.S., Middle East, China and Australia with this fresh funding, which takes the total capital raised so far to around $20 million. Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital and Qualcomm Ventures are among other existing investors in the startup. ... The startup competes with bigger enterprise vendors such as Oracle, Salesforce and SAP on one hand, and smaller, niche startups including Mobiquest, Swiply and Punchd at the other end. Its product — InTouch — gathers real time customer data, applies predictive analysis, and helps retailers such as Nike, Puma, Marks & Spencer and Nokia contact potential customers with personalized offers on-the-go."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Capillary Technologies to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I reviewed the current version of the article and consider it to comply with Neutral point of view. That the article can be further improved is not a reason for deletion. Editing policy. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2016 (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: Relisted to allow assessment of provided sources - final. Nördic  Nightfury  11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic   Nightfury  11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis from the sources above:
 * At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers (hold for company quote) .... Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase....According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's (clear advertising with the usual signs of company cosmeticizing, and the final part itself says "company website information"}} showing the blatant signs none of it was independent but instead the company's own words, the publication itself is known for republishing company words)
 * Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures (hold for additional funding information).....Its company competitors are...." (another clear PR with the natural signs of PR involvements, sheer consistency)
 * Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round (the company's services are....) its clients include (yet again following the same exact information and words, yet a different publisher and date, showing the author is only the company itself and naturally since it's about the company's own business plans)
 * Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform....The company announces...Its clients are... (Yet another PR consistency
 * LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million....The funding will be used for....The company's other funding is....and the other plans are... (yet another PR consistency)
 * A well known company....has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies....
 * (Hold for company's CEO story)....Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers.
 * When a company's only attention is by seeking and hoping for funding and clients, it shows it hasn't even stabilized itself and thus is publishing and republishing PR, since that's their only interests and, as it is, WP:NOT clearly states "Wikipedia is not a business listing for simple company information such as funding, activities, etc.". There's no compromises here since it's clear the only "news" there is, what the company itself wants its clients to hear. As it is, my nomination clearly stated the company itself only used it for clear advertising and here we are now, with SPA comments. SwisterTwister   talk  18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- actually, speedy Delete as G5, since all major contributors appear to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the editing ring whose representative is User:Ashwing. Unfortunately,  the data here is too hold to prove it by checkuser but everything about the article is consistent.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
 * The article was created 11 November 2011‎. was blocked five years later in December 2016. WP:G5 is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and to the extent that arguments to remove all companies from Wikipedia are relevant, why are they not stated as IAR?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Major reliable sources think their audiences need information about this topic, such as Bloomberg and Gartner, and we follow the sources.  The article is fine, as it has useful things to say that serve as a reference point for the topic, interconnecting that information into the world, written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added "WP:GNG" as a wikilink to my !vote, to address an objection below. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not a policy-based vote and simply stating "major reliable sources hink their audiences need information about this" is not how our policies work at all and they never have, because our articles aren't controlled by these said "major reliable sources" or how they controls our actions against them. We have also never accepted things because they were "fine and useful" especially not when it's clear advertising as shown here; I even showed above how the company blatantly republished its own quotes in said "major reliable sources" so there's not even independent "news", hence the sources are not acceptable. All of our policies in WP:What Wikipedia is not clearly state "Wikipedia is not a general listing for business information, services and other contents" and this exactly fits here. Therefore, the fact the account itself was blocked for advertising is relevant and it damages us as an encyclopedia to keep any articles connected to those campaigns. Like with these other advertising campaigns, we remove them as they have no place here. The fact the quoted "reliable major sourcing" above was shown to be simply be published and republished PR says enough since the news publishers couldn't even be clean about it, so we shouldn't jump into ourselves. As the Delete votes commented earlier, the concerns about advertising, SPAs and the overall influence here is alone to delete, regardless of existing sourcing.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As per our article, the proof by repeated assertion fallacy "is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted...In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth..."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (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.