Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISentia


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ISentia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this, this and this and this has not changed much since starting in October 2005. Several users have come and go, changing this and that, but none of them are considerably active except. SwisterTwister  talk  23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Most coverage seems to be routine; nothing that seems to satisfy the GNG. Bjelleklang -  talk 11:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It's worth noting that until 2013, it was called "Media Monitors," but I still can't find anything past the mundane. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. They're a specialist company, but a reasonably well known one. For instance they (and their predecessor Media Monitors) provide or have provided services to a range of government departments; won the 2015 AMEC award; produces a regular index for Crikey, is an ASX listed company that currently has a market cap of $830million, etc etc etc. -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) (no conflict of interest)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - accomplished is not the same as notable. No in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability (organizations and companies) says (my bolding): "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion."     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iSentia to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment: All of these articles concern the IPO and the stock price following the IPO, and while I'm far from an expert on these things I'd think that this is more or less routine coverage any company would have after an IPO, regardless of the notability of the company. Bjelleklang -  talk 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is fine for the sources to be about the IPO and the stock price following the IPO. From Notability (organizations and companies): "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." There is "deep coverage" about iSentia. This article from The Australian: "iSentia was a dream pitch for private equity seller Quadrant, which did a fantastic job of getting this away at a price-earnings-ratio of 26. There’s also no doubt that media monitoring is a good and growing business. iSentia is the largest firm of its kind in Australia, enjoying a 90 per cent market share by revenue, and counting 87 per cent of the S&P/ASX 100 as customers. Tick the box marked ‘‘industry leader with pricing power’’. The company was founded in 1982 as a press clipping service, but is now a software company. Its products are organised into three pillars to help organisations get their message into the mainstream and social media, keep customers up to date with what’s appearing in the media, and delivering analytical reports on an organisation’s performance in the media. The company’s 5000  or so customers – mainly large companies and governments – pay a subscription fee to access these products and tend to be loyal. Its top 50 clients have been with the company for an average of more than 11 years – another tick.  There’s also the fact that iSentia’s software is highly scalable. With costs largely fixed, a decent chunk of each additional sale flows straight to the bottom line. That’s good for growing margins. Tick." This article from The Australian: "iSentia was among the most traded stocks, with its market cap hitting $486 million. iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market, providing information from various media sources to alert business and government clients to what is being said about their organisations, competitors and industry. The company uses software and other systems to capture and interpret data from more than 5,500 mainstream media outlets, 55,000 online news sources and 3.4 million user-generated content sources on Facebook, Twitter and Weibol.  Clients include Microsoft, Nike, Coca-Cola and Samsung and most of the top 100 companies listed on the ASX.  It also operates in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam and has an emerging presence China." The Australian says that "iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market", which strongly establishes that iSentia is notable. And the coverage I quoted above extends "well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Notability (organizations and companies)).  Cunard (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (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: Originally closed as "delete", but relisted as a result of Deletion review/Log/2015 November 1.  Sandstein  19:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Cunard made good points about WP:ROUTINE, which seems to be aimed at the truly mundane coverage. When  articles in RS remark that a firm is exceptional, I think that means ROUTINE does not apply.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I participated in the DRV that resulted in this article being relisted. I couldn't see the state of the article, because of course, it had been deleted.  Hats off to  for marshalling detailed and substantive references.  Now that the article has been restored I can see it needs a lot of work, to integrate those fine references.  I started integrating the references Cunard found, and started to add some additional references I found.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your work on the article! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

<ul><li>iSentia is a publicly traded corporation. According to Notability (organizations and companies): "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Here are some analyst reports: <ol> <li>From Morningstar, Inc. (link): 1WebCite, 2WebCite, 3WebCite, 4WebCite, and 5WebCite.</li> <li>From Reuters: link (12 pages)WebCite</li> <li>From Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc.: "Wright Investors Service Comprehensive Report for iSentia Group Ltd" (53 pages)WebCite</li> </ol> These sources demonstrate that because of analyst reports iSentia, like almost all publicly traded corporations passes Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Keep, There are quite a few references available when anyone search by companies' previous name Sentia Media and Media Monitors. Quite a few reliable sources including Techcrunch, Business Insider Australia and others. Even publicly traded corporation, itself is a primary critera to establish notability.Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH; some of the coverage transcends WP:ROUTINE, providing background information and overviews about the company. North America1000 22:11, 17 November 2015 (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.