Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics


 * 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. Another very large wall of text again proving that there is great disagreement about how to treat this articles and whether certain sources meet the requirements of reliability and verifiability. As with other AfDs of this type, there is no consensus to delete this at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Kissmetrics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Instead of PRODing, which may actually be driveby-removed, I'll simply nominate and say: the first source is boldly entirely PR, see "“I was born with the gift to drive traffic to websites,” is how the young and amazingly energetic serial entrepreneur, Neil Patel, starts our interview...." and that same article goes to state, not only the specifics of interviews but of the fluffed-puffed achievements there is to advertise about both the company and him. The VentureBeat article not only states the funding part but then adds paragraphs about what the company is and its services along with how it works; that is notoriously used for PR and PR alone. The next TechCrunch article boldly contain words only found at sales pitches, which are messages targeted at the clients by stating words that get their attention, such as "Kissmetrics wants to boost you!"....No honest "journalism" adds that, ever; the second TechCrunch is essentially also the same; simply by "adding a journalist" is not stating that the company was completely uninvolved, certainly not, it's actually stating the contrary, the company was involved but is wanting to be surreptitious about it. The next one, MediaPost, then again contains only PR-based speak, nothing an actual journalism-article would contain, since this exact article goes to specifics about the background; sure, there's a lawsuit stated but that's still not taking away how it's not actual substantial news. The next one, which also states information about the lawsuits, is thin, and is still not convincing. Whether it was intended or not, it could actually be said these links were put to the end to perhaps counteract the PR-based information with hopes of adding "neutrality". Essentially what this company's business and environment is: having PR-based or still otherwise PR-like or then simply unconvincing coverage altogether. I'll note that I have looked at this author's contributions and they hint at the work of a PR agent, because the exact links here were easily found with searches, searches that also found other trivial coverage, all that is still entirely unconvincing since it's only about expected company activities; some of it is timed apart suggesting there was no consistency. SwisterTwister  talk  17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These books from an academic publisher have significant coverage of Kissmetrics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are ... not great book sources. (The former I am familiar with because the book and author articles in Wikipedia were paid promotional pieces that needed severe culling and is only kept for an appearance on one of the minor NYT lists, the latter is a very minor "for Dummies" book.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you doubt the reliability or the independence of those sources? Or that they have significant coverage of Kissmetrics? Your comment seems to be about the notability of the books, which doesn't have any relevance to the notability of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt they establish notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, which of the requirements of "significant coverage", "independent" and "reliable" do you believe that these sources don't meet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've heard of them lots, they may well be notable ... but even if they were, this article presently warrants WP:TNT. Perhaps there are non-rubbish sources an article can be constructed from, possibly a very short one ... - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An article can be blown up and started again without an admin having to press the "delete" button first. Just use the "edit" tab. WP:TNT is a highly-disputed essay based on a personal opinion that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, there's probably a reason WP:TNT is as widely cited as it is - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And there is a reason why it is widely ignored by admins closing deletion discussions. What makes you think that can't simply edit an article to blow it up and start again rather than have it deleted first? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible that badgering people who disagree with you will turn out to be less than convincing - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not badgering, but attempting to conduct a discussion. How about answering my questions rather than complaining that I'm asking them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't view this sub-thread above as "badgering" by 86.17.222.157; it reads to me like they're simply stating their opinion regarding matters. North America1000 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because what pushes this company over the notability threshhold is the 2011/2012 controversy regarding the "Cunning Online Tracking Service That Can’t Be Dodged" (to quote a Wired.com headline) Add in the other existing rs coverage about the company, and it is a keep. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator - That's essentially being the one thing about the company that is in fact nor PR, everything else is in fact said PR; the fact my analysis and comment have show this where there's blatant and bold "the company wants to show and say for its clients"; that would be an unbalanced article by having one thing NPOV of a law case, and then everything else PR, considering the only other coverage aside from that is in and of itself ("existing coverage" is in fact the exact same PR I have listed here above). When Wikipedia starts accepting advertisements, no matter what the supposed exceptions may be, that's when this is no longer the encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister   talk  19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And do you consider that the two books published by John Wiley & Sons that I cited above to be PR? If so, why? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, for starters, the book sources are certainly not "pr", a simple, two-letter acronym that is often used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources. North America1000 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Lean Entrepreneur. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 23-24.
 * Social Media Metrics For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt198-200.
 * "Researchers Expose Cunning Online Tracking Service that Can't be Dodged". Wired.
 * "Online Analytics Firm Settles Suit Over Unstoppable User Tracking". Wired.
 * "KISSmetrics Looks To Turn Your Customer Data Into An Interactive Infographic". TechCrunch.
 * "AOL, Spotify, GigaOm, Etsy, KISSmetrics sued over undeletable tracking cookies". ExtremeTech.
 * "KISSmetrics moves from analysis to execution with Engage, a new conversion optimization tool". VentureBeat.
 * "KISSmetrics: A Conversion Funnel Tool That Gives Your Site A Memory". TechCrunch.
 * Comment and analysis - Not only have I included these sources above, but I have listed the concerns about them; as for the others, I will say that the last TechCrunch article listed is clearly a sales pitch alone, in that it says "KISSmetrics: A Conersion Funnel Tool That Gives Your A Memory", no honest journalist would say that unless they were persuaded as part of an advertising campaign, the article then goes to say "what your clients need", what the company is and its financial background, to then actually "how does KissMetrics differ" which is followed the company founder's words. No journalism efforts ever come from simply allowing the company itself to not only blatantly supply the information, but to use it as a "news" form, when it clearly is only being listed to fluff and puff the company's gains and activities. This same source then says "The service is free for the first thirty days, then offers tiered monthly pricing plans based on how many events you’ll be tracking. These plans begin at $149 a month and go up to $699, with custom plans for especially large sites" which is followed by the people involved; that is also not close at all to actual news because only the company would have knowledge and access to those activities, so who best to list it than the company itself = not news. The next one "KISSmetrics moves from analysis to execution with Engage, a new conversion optimization tool" not only also has a sales-pitch-like tone but it goes to "Since the word “metrics” is in the company name, it’s not a shock that KISSmetrics has been all about analysis....ISSmetrics is unveiling a new product, and in some sense, a new identity. The company is launching Engage, a conversion rate optimization solution that is focused on taking traffic to your website and turning it into dollars. Engage will join the company’s existing product, which is now called Analyze....install Engage on your site and you gain the power....KISSmetrics is a popular solution....Notable customers include...", everything from that listed information is clearcut PR in that it not only advertises what the business is and its information, but it goes to list not only its clients but then finishing with sentences about the company's plans = Not independent nor news. The next article is the only one closest to actually seeming independent and non-PR in that it actually talks about a law case, but any company is nearly always going to have something like that, it's not an automatic inheritance of news or notability, as closed AfDs have shown. Next, as for the  Wired, I specifically mentioned this one and its concerns, so it's simply repeated without actually acknowledging or considerations. Once again, my analysis, concerns and examinations here have explicitly stated why these sources are unconvincing and how they are not "significant or substantial".  SwisterTwister   talk  22:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again you are ignoring the two books published by John Wiley & Sons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because those are essentially still only guides, not the larger amount of coverage needed; even then with my examinations listing these as "still thin", the concerns of PR outweigh any other possibly good sources here; and PR should and is a serious concern. SwisterTwister   talk  16:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they are not "essentially still only guides", whatever you mean by that, but independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, so enough to substantiate notability. It doesn't matter if there are thousands of other mentions of the subject found by web searches that are PR - we should simply ignore those and concentrate on the sources that are not PR. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: per sourcing listed above by NorthAmerica, this company meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply saying Keep and not actually acknowledging and considering the massive concerns listed above, including listing and examining each and every article, is not the same thing as actually saying "it's sourcing". There's no "significant, substantial, notability, etc" or WP:GNG if the sources alone are PR and simply republish company-supplied company about said company itself. I have explicitly even noted such blatant PR such as "Here's what Kissmetrics has to offer" and "What Kissmetrics services are! Here's the clients that have used Kissmetrics!" (all sales pitches and that alone), therefore none of that is "substantial, significant, notability, independent, etc." or "WP:GNG coverage". Also, simply tossing comments aside from as "not considering swaths of sources", this means nothing if, again, the sources themselves, the contents that is, are unconvincing and PR, that is what is unacceptable (regardless of the names and numbers of sources). As always, we cannot alone simply that it's supposedly acceptable simply because a known news source publishes it, because that's exactly what churnalism is and that's what companies use as methods of self-advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources are pure PR, I agree with the nom 100% --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence that "the sources are pure PR", and does this !vote take into consideration the sources I provided above, or only those in the article? The sources I provided above are book sources published by John Wiley & Sons and bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and serve to qualify that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. North America1000 10:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comments above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This comment above says they confirm their earlier statements and claim "it doesn't matter if there's PR if there's sourcing", yet I have explicitly stated what was exactly PR. Simply still stating that "there's still sourcing" is hardly an acknowledgement or consideration of what I said above, as is the same with "per my comments above". SwisterTwister   talk  19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, for at least the third time of asking, please explain why this book and this one don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please address those specific sources rather than continue to repeat the generalisations that you have made so far. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is written in the article "Kissmetrics provides visualization tools on how users interact with their site, web apps, and mobile products. It collects and shows customers acquisition data for each user." This is blatantly promotional language. As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source. In addition, im not impressed by the Tech Crunch article since it posted the piece as if it is a bait article for you to use. The only "notable" one is the FORBES article, which is weak in itself. This article should be deleted. This isn't a future calling card. Pyrusca (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to answer the same question that I asked SwisterTwister above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles, it's based upon all available sources. Notice that I have provided many sources above that are not present in the article, which serve to establish the company's notability. North America1000 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This assumes the existence of these sources. We can't just assume them - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the sources I provided above in my !vote; many of them are not in the article. The delete !vote above comes across as only being based upon sources in the article, such as "As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source" and "the only "notable" one is the FORBES article..." Of note is that I did not include the Forbes source in my analysis of notability above. See also: WP:ARTN. North America1000 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Commment - Considering WP:PROMO, advertising contents and its PR advertising sources cannot be fixed, and this is shown by my extensive analysis above, because once we start accepting advertisements with such churnalistic and company-enhanced sources, we're damned as an encyclopedia. For the sake of keeping the encyclopedia at its best and removing such advertisements, this is what is important, regardless of notability, because even with a notable article, if that were to happen, we would have accepted an advertisement, something that we have staunchly and largely attempted to not let happen. SwisterTwister   talk  05:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Saying a source is a PR does not make it so, the same with saying journalists are not honest or have a conflict of interest, these judgments should be demonstrated in order to be taken into a minimal account. And even dismissing some weaker sources such as the VentureBeat and TechCrunch articles, the concerns about the two John Wiley & Sons books and the MediaPost and Wired articles are particularly weak and very unlikely, if not odd (I never heard that a book being a bestseller means it being unreliable, nor I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote). There is enough news and book coverage, particularly in The Lean Entrepreneur: How Visionaries Create Products, Innovate with New Ventures, and Disrupt Markets by Brant Cooper and Patrick Vlaskovits, to have a neutral and accurate article. Cavarrone 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Indeed, assertions of the available sources all automatically somehow being "pr" as a default should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than by proof by assertion alone. For example, the sources I have posted above are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. As such, the sources I have provided objectively serve to qualify the topic's notability. North America1000 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It's pretty much agreed by everyone that the present article, as of when I am typing this, looks pretty bad. That it needs severe clean-up isn't really, though, that solid of an argument for deletion. Should this get kept, it would be a simple matter to edit things and put them in much better language. As far as sourcing goes, I believe that it's true that some of the cited links have problems. What TechCrunch in particular has published is intensely promotional. I do, however, think that the two book citations, the reporting from Wired, and the rest give a reasonable sense of notability, even if I'm not too sure. I lean towards keeping the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep had a quick look at the sources and they strike me as reliable. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which ones? The ones where I have clearly stated they were either PR or PR-focused? Simply stating that some sources are acceptable is not the same thing as analyzing and acknowledging them. SwisterTwister   talk  16:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the ones Pwolit iets mentioned as reliable, and that you were unable to dismiss. Cavarrone 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thinly stating that the sources seem enough is not at all actually the same thing as analyzing them, as theu have been above. Despite that people are listing Keep, there is then cknsensus, considerably, no one actually confidently wants this kept as they themselves acknowledge the concerns. What PR is....is PR, simply suggesting that it may not be intended as PR carry no weight or bearing as actually analyzing them, as they have been above. Then the claims of "but the PR concerns are not stated" is completely unconvincing since they are above in the nomination and following comments themselces, therefore, simply stating this is not substantiated; includibg to not even acknowledge their own listed PR sources, which again, affects the foundation of simply suggesting Keep but not actually substantiating it. Once we start compromising ourselves to accept PR and an article that was clearly only started for PR, we are damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  16:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same concept dozens of times does not make it true, or more convincing. Eventually, even heavily retouched press releases are not difficult to be identified as such. In spite of walls of text of "analysis", none of the provived sources has been demonstrated to be a press release. The funny thing, even negative journalistic pieces have been marked as PR, which is one of the oddest thing I happened to read in an AfD. Provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. --Cavarrone  18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, personal attacks never help, and I will state again my commentd above explicitly stated the PR parts from the listed sources. Also, there has never been commentd at AfD suggesting negative criticisms of companies was PR, unless it was still largely PR itself. My comments themselces have even stated how, why and where sources can be PR. SwisterTwister  talk  18:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and as I analyzed in my comment, your arguments in dismissing some sources (eg. the book sources, or the MediaPost and Wired articles) were weak and unconvincing (I have ever seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote). And you yourself now say that such "sources CAN be press releases", which is hardly an evidence of whatsoever. As you said, a PR is a PR, and as long your only argument is that the sources are all press releases, the burden of proof is on you. Cavarrone 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator - These latest Keep votes are, I want emphasize, are simply either stating "per user" or not actually substantiating themselves after analyses have bee listed, and they have not since, post-analyses, actually showed convincing sources, including ones that I have, as it is, listed are unconvincing such as mere company activities and "news" about this. A Keep vote, especially having been posted after such analyses is not carrying the same weight and bearing, if they not only actually listen to the concerns shown and stated above, but to actually then search for suitable coverage, which in this case, is non-existent because the company is simply searching for any and every PR opportunity, even the Delete votes above acknowledged these concerns, yet no one has actually kept to mind what the said either.... It is a fact that the Keep votes here never listed any acknowledgement of seeing the concerns themselves and instead, were simply listing other unconvincing sources, including PR news for trivial and unconvincing company activities, but then also tossing the analyses aside as "not looking or understanding the sources". Therefore no one can seriously take these Keep votes, especially considering the IDONTHEARTHAT and badgering that followed, but if the Keep votes are not even actually listening to the concerns, instead simply stating what they themselves believe, and not what Wikipedia should in fact believe itself. It is a fact that we are damned as an encyclopedia when we start kidding ourselves by accepting PR advertising articles, because that's exactly why these PR campaign articles start, to game the system and attempt, at any and all costs, to accept an advertisement. Nothing whatsoever can persuade us to think otherwise, even if the company were ever notable, because the important thing is to not accept advertising articles whatsoever, accepting an advertisement, even if it were ever notable, would be a damning action, hence because we would have accepted advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  18:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This summary is utterly inaccurate. None of the last comments is a "per user" vote, and on the contrary they clearly indicated several sources which appear reliable and which you have failed and still fail to dismiss. As long as you are repeating yourself again and again, I'll repeat myself too: provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. I see only one WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here. Cavarrone 18:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Every single Keep comment in fact supported the other Keep votes, including the latest ones above. There is nothing new to actually analyze here because no one has in fact added any actual new sources to examine. There is no burden for anyone but the people want to want to Keep the article and with that, list some actually convincing sources, because I certainly added enough in my nomination, stating the concerns, but no one has actually addressed or fixed them, instead simply ignoring the concerns and then stating their own beliefs. I once again have explicitly stated including the portions of contents from said sources, showing what the PR concerns were and why they existed, so for anyone to continue saying otherwise or making personal attacks is completely unacceptable. As for the MediaPost and Wired, I especially included the concerning parts of information that led and showed why those sources were not convincing, so it cannot be said I never examined them, because I explicitly put so above. After my last large analysis of the sources, no one ever at all listed any actual sources, and instead, simply voted Keep citing the same said sources above, which despite, were then analyzed largely and closely, along with the other ones listed. To state again, this AfD clearly shows the latest votes being "per sourcing listed above..." (1) and "per my comments above" (2), despite these were added after my analysis, so these comments either intentionally chose to ignore the analysis that was posted after the listed "supposed sources" or saw the concerns, but chose to still list their own beliefs, instead of actually acknowledging the concerns. As for the GoogleBooks link that was recently listed, that clearly contains guides themselves, exactly how I stated above earlier in my analysis, and clearly these said GoogleBooks links contain information that was supplied by the company and for the company itself, therefore that also cannot be guaranteed as PR-free, let alone, company-touched-free. Also, it's unacceptable to say I "dismissed sources" since I have been listing analyses and comments since this AfD began, specifying, again, the concerns each time. It's this type of ignorance of PR that honestly damns Wikipedia because no one cares or actually fully considers the analysis listed, and the subsequent concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop digging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How does your comment have to do with this AfD exactly? It seems quite random. If you wouldn't mind explaining your comment further please do so. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to the law of holes: if you find yourself in an untenable position, you should stop and change what you are doing, rather than carrying on and exacerbating the situation. Just a way to say that repeating yourself again and again does not make your position stronger but weaker. Cavarrone 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cavarrone, for explaining exactly what I meant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And after reading this redundant wall of text, I still fail to see how the MediaPost and Wired articles are supposed to be PR. The only vague arguments in your deletion rationale were a so-called "PR-based speak", which looks like just a POV and is rather different from pointing to a specific press release used as the basis for an article, and that "they contain negative material so to appear neutral", which is just something odd and incoherent. And about the books, calling them guides does not affect their reliability, you can even call them hamburgers if you like it, as long as they are reliable independent secondary sources containing significant coverage about the subject they are good. Please stop posting the same stuff again and again if you have anything new to say, your POV is quite clear. Cavarrone 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not primarily because of being promotional ,but it is just not notabler. It's a $7 million company-a small business, and if it were anything but a new internet company  it would be getting no attention whatsoever. But for this type of firm, there are new sources that give every single acquisition and press release coverage. Let's makedsome analogies: In other fields with very extensive coverage because of promotional reasons, or just because of fan interest, such as wrestling or college foootball in the US, or beauty pageants, or the like, w interpret the sourcing requirements for  substantial coverage from third-party independent and  reliable sources, not press releases and not mere announcements quite strictly. We could   deal with it by adding on special factors, and we do to some extent in the special notability guidelines, but mainly we rely on a very high degree of skepticism on the sources.  This should apply to internet companies also for the same reasons--essentially all the coverage is tainted to some degree with promotionalism , and essentially all of it is because of special interest within the industry not shared elsewhere.  The sources here have exactly those problems.  DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep:Agree Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per 1000  rationale above.Mbridge3000 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This comment is, yet, not considering any of the extensive analysis listed above, showing clearly nothing here establishes actual notability, and like with the user's nominated deletion here at AfD, it is not convincing or merely state PR and republished, so that is certainly not substantial, nor will it be. SwisterTwister   talk  08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete.Just another start-up and no claim to notability apart from raising $7 million, lawsuit and acquisition. These things happen thirteen-a-dozen in the corporate world. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the only truly reliable and independent source presented is Wired related to the super-cookie lawsuit. But that's not enough to build an article on. The company has been around for a while, so the lack of WP:SIGCOV is a bit surprising, but that only reinforced that the company is not notable. The current article is a WP:DIRECTORY listing and the sources presented would not allow to development beyond that, and Wikipedia is not a directory of marginally notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a small non-notable startup. What matters is the quality of references and sorry, but the references here are pretty bad. I see the Wired as one of the better ones, but even that is not enough. The coverage is techcrunch and other tech blogs are routine coverage. Please note, that asserting that techblogs are entirely independent is simply proof by assertion which btw is contradicted by quite a few sources online. As for the book sources, we just don't use any book (just like we don't use any website). The "for dummies" series contains numerous books about every small thing related to software and are essentially like manuals (and the author btw is actually a self declared professional in the same field who advises companies). It is pretty easy to get "content" into books like these. This is not significant coverage. More importantly, there is no credible claim of significance here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom And here comes the another PR. Nothing to write about this one. Light2021 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources listed by Northamerica1000, which show that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually helps to substantiate one's vote given there has been enormous analysis specifically showing the listed sources are merely PR, either being started for them or actually by the company themselves. There is no CORPDEPTH if coverage is simply about their own words and actions, considering both WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, which is far heavier than "CORPDEPTH". ONce we allow ourselves to be used as a mere PR webhost, we're damned as a serious encyclopedia, because it then shows we can't handle the simplest of advertisements. SwisterTwister   talk  02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because a !vote doesn't agree with your analysis doesn't mean that it is unsubstantiated or was done without serious consideration. It's entirely possible for people to carefully analyse the sources present in good faith and come to opposite conclusions, as I did in this case after looking at Northamerica1000's sources.
 * Neutral or positive reporting on a business doesn't mean it's PR and unreliable. If we applied this standard that "if coverage is simply about their own words and actions" then the subject isn't notable to biographies, the result would be absurd and not many biographies would survive. In fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment. Reporting what reliable sources say about a subject is the entire basis of our notability guideline, and one can't simply dismiss sources out of hand because they are commenting on primary sources.
 * Of course, subject where the only sources are those that uncritically report on said releases would be problematic, but in this case there are several reliable sources that don't do that: the two books, one of which uses this company as a case study and the various articles about its privacy breaches and the relevant lawsuits. Issues with tone can be solved by editing; I would for example support expanding the sentence on the supercookies lawsuit to at least explain what was alleged to be problematic about their tracking capabilities. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "n fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment." has it backwards. The fact that the news outlets base their articles on such press releases indicates they are not doing independent reporting, but just repeating what pressa gents convince them to include. Not only is such "reporting not a RS for purposes of notability, but it is not even a RS for anything else,because it's just based on the company's own say-so DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The case study in the 2016 book The Lean Entrepreneur published by John Wiley & Sons provides extensive coverage of the subject. The Wired and TechCrunch articles provide significant coverage about the subject and are not press releases. They are written by established journalists and published by reputable news organizations. I agree with Cavarrone that "I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote." Here is another article about the subject that is not mentioned above:  The article notes: "Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley originally found that cookies stored in the browser’s “cache” of previously visited websites could be used to respawn cookies on Hulu’s website. Code responsible for this capability came from a company called Kissmetrics, which analyzes website-traffic data. But the Kissmetrics code wasn’t limited to Hulu. Technology researchers Ashkan Soltani, who worked on the original Berkeley study, and Nick Doty analyzed the top 1 million websites and found that 515 of them were using the same Kissmetrics code. The “sole function” of that code was to “set a persistent identifier via the browser cache,” Soltani wrote. ...  The websites containing the code included music service Spotify.com, personal finance site Mint.com, crafts marketplace etsy.com, government site challenge.gov and profiles site about.me.  ...  Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available. (Your Digits blogger had a bit of trouble finding it on the Kissmetrics site, but it can be found here or by Googling “Kissmetrics opt out.”)"There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kissmetrics to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above coverage suggests that the event of the Supercookie controversy may be notable (of which I'm not convinced), but that is a one event situation for the company, which is otherwise not notable. Companies are not notable for minor controversies they cause. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  <b style="color:violet">Be a guest</b> 09:16, 17 October 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: moved to new log Your welcome &#124; <b style="color:blue">Democratics</b> <b style="color:red">Talk</b> 11:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply because 1 case study exists is not a sole basis of notability, and when considering serious concerns such as WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, it can certainly be enough to not count 1 case study as convincing; therefore, the quoted link above actually shows not only trivial information, but then the last 2 sentences literally come from the company itself: "The websites containing the code included [insert named companies and other mentioned businesses here]....'Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available". None of that can be taken seriously as non-PR or a guarantee of the company not supplying its information therefore actually citing this shows the bareness of actual good quality sourcing, and thus not considering any trivial and unconvincing "company quotes" existing. Then, also considering the extensive and noticeable analysis of the Wired and TechCrunch, showing that they are simply advertising and showcasing the company, along with supplied company quotes and interviews, it is not the same thing to then suggest "but it's a source!". We need to be careful about these subjects, which is why they are analyzed so thoroughly, because they always have such obvious PR intentions given the company's plans are exactly this, therefore when considering the WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT mentioned earlier, it's certainly enough to delete. SwisterTwister   talk  19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; <b style="color:blue">Democratics</b> <b style="color:red">Talk</b> 11:16, 21 October 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.