Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Ladder


 * 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. Thanks everyone for your additional comments. I appreciate it! Deleting. Thanks again for contributing and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Data Ladder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software development organization; I found a page that praises 10 different "data quality tools" including Data Ladder with a "Some of the products...are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation..." disclaimer in the end and some comment spam on blogs, and that seems to be it. The user FarahKim seems to claim to be "a product marketing manager for Data Ladder" and "the author of this article", suggesting that the article may also be an undisclosed paid contribution (the page's creator is a different account though). Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The COI related templating on the article and talk page appeared incorrectly applied and I've attempted to remedy it.  has made a good faith attempt to make us aware of his COI, albeit somewhat belatedly after some tag removals and other content additions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Weak delete (unless wP:THREE WP:RS sources presented here): The COI editting likely make any edit attempt too hard.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I observe my comment and signature has been copied below so I wish to make it clear to a closer this should be considered to be my only vote. I concur with  below a WP:TNT is needed here with an extremely strong recommendation any further submission should go via WP:AFC with any COI editors listening to advice from sources such as the WP:TEAHOUSE.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear editors, please find our responses against these pointers.

Responding to Page Deletion Pointers:

1.	Non-notable software development organization:

Please find the following recognition and notability of Data Ladder by Gartner, IDC and state institutions of the United States.

Gartner Peer Review with 4.6 Rating https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/data-quality-tools/vendor/data-ladder/product/datamatch-enterprise Gartner Vendor: https://www.gartner.com/reviews/vendor/data-ladder Gartner Quadrant: http://docshare04.docshare.tips/files/23488/234889991.pdf IDC Companies Covered: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=US45454519 Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/data-ladder

A record linkage study by Curtin University of Australia where Data Ladder was compared with renowned companies like IBM and SAS: https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-4-9/comments

Technical report by University of Wisconsin where Data Ladder is recognized as one of the top 15 commercial data quality products: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers/magellan-tr.pdf

Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE) and the Board of Regents for Higher Education uses Data Ladder for conducting matches:

http://www.ct.edu/files/pdfs/p20win/ValidityofDataMatchingUtility-P20_WIN_0002-Final.pdf

Due to the non-promotional policy of Wikipedia, these were not discussed within the body and were mentioned only in the References section.

'''2.	I found a page that praises 10 different "data quality tools" including Data Ladder with a "Some of the products...are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation..." disclaimer in the end and some comment spam on blogs, and that seems to be it.'''

We are in no way affiliated with said publication. As a data quality tool used by numerous public and private institutions, we are regularly mentioned by tech blogs.

Here is a list of where we are mentioned, which are also disclosed in the Publication section in the Data Ladder wiki: https://analyticsindiamag.com/10-best-data-cleaning-tools-get-data/ https://www.datamation.com/big-data/10-top-data-quality-tools.html https://www.em360tech.com/data_management/tech-features-featuredtech-news/top-10-data-cleansing-solutions/

As for the comment spam, please note that Data Ladder has been around for nearly two decades and it may have been an old backlinking technique used by someone which we no longer endorse. All such links have been disavowed from our end.

3.	The user FarahKim seems to claim to be "a product marketing manager for Data Ladder" and "the author of this article", suggesting that the article may also be an undisclosed paid contribution (the page's creator is a different account though). Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am the author of this article and I am a Product Marketing Manager, employed at Data Ladder. It is not an undisclosed paid contribution. The template for COI has been implemented to mention connection. Since this my first time, the template may have been applied incorrectly.

The COI related templating on the article and talk page appeared incorrectly applied and I've attempted to remedy it.

'''* Bulleted list item FarahKim has made a good faith attempt to make us aware of his COI, albeit somewhat belatedly after some tag removals and other content additions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) '''

The author was not aware of the COI template. It was added after an editor pointed out the need to make a disclosure. I appreciate you pointing out that we made an attempt to disclose COI. If the deletion flag is removed, I will my best to ensure all COI templating is done correctly.

•	Weak delete (unless wP:THREE WP:RS sources presented here): The COI editing likely make any edit attempt too hard.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources from .edu domains have been presented in the first counter-argument, along with references on Gartner.com and IDC.com.

Please know we are committed to objectivity and are publishing this page solely for the purpose of a company biography. We look forward to suggestions for improvement and editing wherever required. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarahKim (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The 3 publications you linked to are all top-10 lists. The Datamation one includes the "Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensatione" disclaimer, the analyticsindiamag.com one has a page named "Advertise with us" about how good they are at "making it easy for you to propagate your brand", and the em360tech.com's "About Us" page includes sentences such as "The mission at EM360° is to provide a platform for your messages[...]", "Move your campaigns to the next level[...] Call us today[...]". The page at https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=US45454519 seems to offer to purchase a 6-slide online presentation for $2500, I haven't missed a decimal point somewhere in the first half of that number, and the only part I can see is a huge list of companies covered (including Data Ladder). The "A record linkage study by Curtin University of Australia where Data Ladder was compared with renowned companies like IBM and SAS" link seems to be actually a comment on some kind of a data stuff-related study, where the study itself doesn't seem to compare anything, as far as I see. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if it's found to be notable, it's best to have a clean slate because the COI issues here are insurmountable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

External Link [Company Information] is a web archieve link from 2013, which hides the real link showing a filed complaint from 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reichrob (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TNT at best, failure to meet any semblance to a balanced notability guide at worst. Ifnord (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Many of them don't even identify who wrote the content. Going through the sources, http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers/magellan-tr.pdf, identifies its authors, but it barely mentions the subject. "tom" at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46007/tools-for-matching-name-address-data/127893 who says that he "used dataladder.com for a big dataset of names. They did a fantastic job matching up different databases with very different spellings and cut through a lot of duplicates". http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers1/umetrics-edbt19.pdf names it's many authors, but again, makes barely a mention of Data Ladder. https://analyticsindiamag.com/10-best-data-cleaning-tools-get-data/ was written by Srishti Deoras, who works as Associate Editor for Analytics India Magazine. But all she has to say is "These user friendly tools help businesses from any size and any industry to manage their data cleansing processes with ease." The rest is similar. Barely paraphrased material from press releases trying to pass as analysis in "top 10" listcles. The sourcing of this article doesn't come close to meeting the notability requirements for companies described in WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2020 (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.