Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoca


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Invoca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my extensive PROD here as this is still an advertisement and the sources following along with this state. SwisterTwister  talk  01:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is factual and contains no puffery – only objective summary information to inform the reader about this company. It contains 13 source citations, only a few of which are self-published (e.g., referencing the company website). It's brief, but it's reasonably solid. If you want to look for biased articles about non-notable topics, you'll find those elsewhere – this isn't one of them. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it is because the authoring account was a confirmed paid advertising user who contributed and started several advertisements for his clients, and this is clearly one of them, since all of the sources essentially involve what the company wants to say about itself, regardless of the source's name. When an article has to focus this heavily with what the company wants to talk about which is about its own money activities and its hopes for obtaining larger amounts of it, that not only confirms the fact the authoring user was paid by the company to start this advertisement, it shows that's the only intentions here, especially since (1) the advertising user has not been here for quite some time now and (2) this article has never been touched by anyone else at all. There are no compromises when it comes to blatant activities such as these. SwisterTwister   talk  02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "this article has never been touched by anyone else at all". There are various editors in the article history (including about 20 edits by me, and I clearly have no COI here), although I won't dispute the fact that there has been some COI editing. If you're looking for an article that reads like an advertisement, take a look at the article about the company's competitor, CallRail. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and I have nominated all related articles to this for deletion so that's taken care of, but the mere and simple facts this is still an advertisement containing literally only what the company paid for what they wanted to include here, along with sources that largely contain this also, by either the company publishing their own PR or people republishing it for them. Even if there are a few other users, the PR environment still stays and it's something that cannot be improved if (1) those were the intentions all along and (2) searches are not finding anything else than said PR, therefore we cannot compromise or otherwise choose to keep such a questionable article. Also, even now that I have nominated all articles related, that would not be a complete defense for keeping this, if it too is questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  02:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After further review of the edit history, I do agree that the bulk of the edits look like potential COI edits, and the remaining edits (including mine) are mostly just gnoming. But I still think the article's not so bad. It fulfills the basic purpose of giving the reader information about the company in a reasonably neutral way, and it's good to be able to find basic summary information like this about companies. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not author this article but I did perform some paid edits to it earlier this year, which I clearly disclosed per Wiki policy. I also followed Wikipedia guidelines by seeking input from the Wikipedia community on my proposed edits on the Talk:Invoca page, vs. just making the edits. Also, I purposely did not remove a highly unflattering addition to the article about Invoca's CEO. All that aside, I maintain that the article has a neutral tone, does not contain puffery, and that the company is notable enough to justify an article. JNorman704 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. The article does not use peacock language, encourage readers to do business with the company, or extol the benefits of the company. North America1000 03:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by "no puffery". —BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was addressing part of a concern stated in the nomination. However, we appear to concur... North America1000 06:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to serve as a client / investor prospectus, and provides no value to the project. The subject is an unremarkable, run-of-the mill minor private tech company. Article was created by Special:Contributions/Media_Star_Ungulate with few other contributions, and paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Please see WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Mostly promotional and WP:MILL. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Invoca has received significant coverage in the Fortune, TechCrunch, and Noozhawk articles listed in the Wikipedia article, so it passes Notability. It also received deep coverage here in The Wall Street Journal about its Series D fundraising round that discussed its history and product. I reviewed the Wikipedia article and consider it to be compliant with Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually sources such as TechCrunch are not considered independent since it has a history, and its own article shows this, of publishing advertising and including the company's own PR to help publicize that company, and it also shows in the sheer fact the TC articles will literally say "information supplied by the company", "the company says today:", etc, Noozhawk is clearly some indie website so it cannot be taken as an actual independent source. Also, the Fortune article itself is simply trivial and never amounts to actual substance; therefore we cannot say this is independent, substantial or even significant.
 * Looking at that Fortune article mereley finds simple mentions, including "the company is based in....", "The company's services are....", "Invoca is in the business of....", "Here's what the Invoca President said:", "Invoca, another fast-growing player in this category is Chicago-based DialogTech, which counts companies like Uber, Zendesk and Terminix among its customers", "the company said" ....and that's literally all the Fortune article says. It shows the pattern I noted above, about how the company's own information is simply being republished, therefore it would not matter the publication's name if the contents are simply republished business listing-like information.
 * Also, the comment about "it has deep coverage about its funding" is not applicable, regardless of publication name, because the contents themselves in and of itself suggest it's simply the company publishing its own business financials and statements, that's not independent and it sure as hell is not significant, because it's literally publishing the company's own words. Especially since this said article itself goes to literal specifics about the company's own investors and clients and its current needs for obtaining them, that says enough by itself: Advertising PR. SwisterTwister   talk  22:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2016 (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.