Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entelo


 * 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. So Why  17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Entelo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, lacks significant in-depth source from WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. A mix of paid for marketing content. scope_creep Talk  12:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Please see these sources:
 * 1) "Women in the Workplace (A Special Report) --- Apps to Battle Job Bias: Software takes on hiring and workplace practices"; Silverman, Rachel ; Gellman, Lindsay, Wall Street Journal, Sep 30, 2015, p.R.7 (here the company's algorithm is discussed as a means of overcoming gender bias)
 * 2) "Women's representation in technology fields decreases as seniority increases, research shows" by Talley, Karen; FierceCEO, Mar 22, 2018 (discusses/analyzes data released by Entelo and what that means for women employed in the technology sector)
 * 3) This peer reviewed article discusses Entelo's algorithms ability to identify passive job seekers who might fit a particular role for prospective companies.
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) This peer reviewed article discusses Entelo's algorithms ability to identify passive job seekers who might fit a particular role for prospective companies.
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article was deleted citing this AfD in the deletion log, but the AfD has not been clsoed, and I do not see a consensus to delete at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the page log, the page was twice deleted and restored by who may wish to offer a public  statement even if it is to the effect that it was inadvertent - anyone can make a mistake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, sadly, because nothwithstanding now meeting GNG, I personally consider it to be a publicity piece and that was the paid creator's clear intention before the draft was significantly cleaned up by other editors - a classic example of BOGOF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per, in entirety. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, including the references listed above. The criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP excludes churnalism and many of the references were clear cases of such. We require Independent Content - that is Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Turning to the references ...
 * This Gigaom article is churnalism for their launch and based on an interview with the founder and clearly fails WP:ORGIND as it does not meet the criteria for "Independent Content". This techcrunch reference fails for the same reason as does this Venturebeat article. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2013/06/19/entelos-data-mining-surprise-second-chance-job-candidates/#3fb7a0b777e5 This Forbes "sites" reference and this one also fail as reliable sources but leaving that aside, are also churnalism and also based on an interview with the CEO, as does this Techcrunch reference and they fail WP:ORGIND. This reference from Yahoo Finance and this announcement on Globe Newswire are entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. This Techcrunch article is also based on a funding announcement from the company, fails ORGIND. This sfgate.com reference is based on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND. This Blog post on the WSJ fails as a reliable source but leaving that aside is entirely based on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND. This from The Atlantic is one sentence, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Of the references listed by above, I cannot find the first one listed but I found this remarkably similarly titled article where the company is one of 7 companies listed and the information has likely been sourced from the company (para states "The company says"), fails ORGIND. The FierceCEO reference is based on a report from the company, fails ORGIND. This NYT reference and this on also are entirely based on quotations from the CEO, both fail ORGIND. This NYT reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Finally, this reference from Winsborough and Chamorro-Premuzic does not discuss Entelo in any great detail, nor their algorithm and Entelo is mentioned in-passing in one sentence ("Firms like TalentBin and Entelo have employed similar approaches..."), fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Not a single reference meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the findings of 4meter4. Passes GNG WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per, and thanks to for WP:BOGOF.  Article has several SIGCOVs, including this from the Wall Street Journal. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2019 (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.