Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kompany


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Kompany

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Various WP:ADPROMO as well. Amigao (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and move this dab page to this title. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is one of the notable Austrian companies that operate on an international level and provide innovative technology in the financial sector. Previous editors deleted in the articel a lot of reliable sources which I had to restore with a lot of work in improving the contents (e.g. Austrian Computerwelt Magazine, der Standard Newspaper or German Payment and Banking which is one of the best independent Finance Blogs there). I would suggest to KEEP as part of WikiProject Austria and see how members from there agree on the notability aspect. In addition I am suspicious about the permanent deletion request by a user that got criticised recently a lot by the community because of vandalism and also is discussed to be blocked: User talk:Amigao. Anyway, I am personally very interested in anything going on around Austria, especially about modern culture here, and think that some of those things here need more international visibility. I wrote with Kompany my first english wiki article as I am also very interested in topics about changes in the financial world. Of course I am aware that an article about this company is a not a mainstream topic, but I did not think that this is a requirement for Wikipedia considering almost every company from lists like this one: List of microbreweries. Frottdog (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Frottdog (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep – Seems as article got fixed to satisfy WP:NPOV and notability WP:ORGCRIT (after quick research it seems to be a worldwide operating business data search engines as also mentioned in the articles). It is also a non-public stock corporation and for this fact already legit as Wiki-Article. The provided sources are also reliable in Austria (renowned daily newspaper and magazine like Der_Standard / Trend_(magazine) and https://computerwelt.at/ SokratesLehrling (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — SokratesLehrling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Has significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I do have my concerns about promotionalism, and a number of the sources are likely not reliable/indy, factoring in the non-interview parts of interview articles, I do believe that NORG is met, if not by a wide margin. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete I made some improvements so the article could be judged on the merits of its info and sources, rather than poor formatting. Sourcing is poor, and doesn't demonstrate notability. Several sources are replicated from press releases. It may be WP:TOOSOON. If sourcing can be tightened and improved with more coverage, I'd switch to a keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly "TOOSOON", doesn't demonstrate notability, PR releases, I think the 2 new SPAs who voted here should answer the obvious question about WP:COI (see WP:COIN Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which sources are press releases? As far as I see it´s just one (crowdfundinsider) which undermines statements that are also mentioned in other articles that are clearly not press releases, or? Frottdog (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a case where our naming rules, specifically about partial title matches, fall down. Surely far more people entering "Kompany" would be looking for information about Vincent rather than about this company? At the very least, if this is kept, we should move this to a qualified title and move the disambiguation page to this title. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Every single one of the references are either PR, name-drops in lists of no significance or based on announcements/interviews/quotation where all the information is provided by the company and there is no Independent Content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and we require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article as follows:
 * Der Standard reference has a lot of information about cybersecurity and risks but when it comes to the topic company the reference relies entirely on quotations from the CEO and other boilerplate descriptions from the company. There is no Independent Content and it fails WP:ORGIND.
 * WKO reference is a standard directory entre with information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Payment & Banking reference is an advertorial for a poscast with an interview with the CEO. The lede is written in a neutral voice but it is clear that the information was provided by the company and indeed, there is a "slip-us" in the second last paragraph where the text reads as "*we* expect". Fails WP:ORGIND
 * Computerwelt reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Silicon Republic is a mention in a list of an article promoting Vienna for start-ups. It includes a short summary of the company which is no different than lots of other articles but no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Spotfolio is based on a PR announcement from the investors, connected source, fails WP:ORGIND
 * TechEU reference is based on an this PR announcement from the company, fails [[WP:ORGIND]
 * This reference simply shows the logo, no information on the company, all PR anyway. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * These Trent. https://www.trend.at/themen/100-beste-startups references] include the topic company at rank 26, 32 and 22 in a relatively unimportant top 100 list for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and includes a standard boilerplace photo and description of the comapany, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * FT annual list of Europe's fastest-growing companies shows the topic company at rank 544. It is a relatively unimportant list and position abd the reference does not provide any in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and the methodology disclosed that the ranking is also based on information/figures provided by the company (which is the information that is included in the article), fails ORGIND
 * InsurTech reference is part of the topic company's sales assets, a case study written by the topic company and a consulting company, aimed at potential clients. Fails ORGIND.
 * Fintech Times reference is an advertorial entirely based on an interview with the CEO and information provided by the company, no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Crowdfund Insider reference is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * NewsHubAsia post is based on a press release identical article here but included a link to the press release on the topic company's blog, fails ORGIND
 * Computerwelt's second reference is based on the topic company's announcement of the launch of the newest AML UBO discovery solution - powered by AI! The reference literally repeats paraphrases the announcement, add nothing, no Independent Content. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * coingeek reference is based on a presentation given by the company founders. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * I've also tried to hunt down some analyst reports since the regtech sector is covered. I came across one on deliotte's website but the methodology revealed that it relied on information and figures provided by the company and the report didn't provide any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Perhaps another editor might locate some analyst reports but for now, this topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "there is no Independent Content" User:HighKing ??? Thank you for your effort back-checking the sources, but I think you are maybe a little overdoing :)... Sure, the company is not Apple and not of a huge importance for the mass, as the product is mainly in the B2B sector, but for people interested in technology and in finance/regulation (like me), it definitely is, as mass media coverage is rare in this branch afais. Also saying that there is "no independent content" even to articles where a journalist interviewed the CEO and had a closer look at the company, and the journalist also wrote his name under the article is the same, as if saying that the journalist of those (renowned) media did not do his job. This is quite a serious accusation taking the strict laws for independent media here in Austria/EU into consideration, especially about labeling requirements for allegedly paid content as you also accused all of the media houses covering the company. Further, please have a look at first sentence on NIS. Don´t think that in the statements that were quoted here (that they got an investment) it is a problem taking a press release coverage, but if you want, maybe we can agree on this source by an established startup media which created a video interview about the investment?. However, I am somehow happy about the discussion as I learn here a lot!, but nevertheless I am quite surprised about the massive criticism. With this approach/benchmark you could instantly delete 80% of Wikipedia content with a programmable bot Frottdog (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response, your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of WP:NCORP guidelines. I used the capitalised term "Independent Content" in the context and meaning of its definition in WP:ORGIND which I included in my initial !vote above. So yes, an article where a journalist relies entirely on an interview with the CEO and background information provided by the company *and* without providing any of their own analysis/opinion/etc fails ORGIND. Nor am I saying the journalist didn't do their job - in fact I'd go so far as to say that the journalist did an excellent job. I'm sure that each quote was quoted and the descriptions were accurately and faithfully reproduced. You assume and imply that the journalist's job was to generate "Independent Content" but it isn't, their job is more likely to report "news" not to analyse or comment on it. Nor did I say it was paid content. The entire point of requiring "Independent Content" is to ensure that we move out of a topic company's "echo chamber" of interviews, quotations, announcements, reports, etc and look for independent content where a journalist/analyst provides their own analysis/opinion/etc on the company. This is not a criticism of the company - in fact the sheer volume of references available indicates a well-oiled and functioning marketing department. Instead (and because of the large budgets available to companies' marketing departments to generate "noise") it is simply the application of our own guidelines on establishing notability.  HighKing++ 15:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Please explain me in detail (honest request) why those sources do not count as you even admit that the journalist did an excellent job and why the benchmark is set that extremely high here. I do not get it where the problem is, if a journalist interviews a CEO on a relevant topic and also portrays the company to give the reader some context to what this company is doing (how should he get this information besides asking the company?! Would you assume that the CEO of a joint stock company lied to the journalist?). Having said that, I know and also read WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND, however, the criticised articles by you - those we are talking about - are "independent(✔) primary(✔) third-party(✔) source that are NOT(✔) self-published" like stated in WP:ORGIND. And also there is "significant coverage (✔) in multiple reliable secondary sources(✔) that are independent(✔) of the subject" as stated in WP:NCORP @ WP:ORGCRITE. I must say that in this case your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of those guidelines. Besides, yes, you stated above that the fintechtimes article is an advertorial (which would be paid content), and this is not the case after having another closer look on the article and also after checking the other used sources. --Frottdog (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response to, no problems answering. I know I've said this before but please take a look again. Look at the definition in ORGIND. "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. Lets look at the article based on an interview with the CEO. The first question to be considered is: what is the source of the information and detail in each article - and the answer is either directly from quotations from the CEO or common descriptions provided by the company. The next question is: does the journalist offer any of their own opinion/analysis/etc - and the answer is No. That is not therefore Independent Content, the article has merely repeated information provided by sources connected to the company. Indeed, it may be the case that it is all factually true and correctly transcribed by the journalist. It is also the case that these articles may be used to support facts within the article. But they cannot be used to establish notability. The application of the definition of "Independent" is applied to a high and strict standard in NCORP for good reason - most companies aren't notable. Getting your CEO interviewed, or having a newspaper repeat a company announcement, doesn't establish notability to the standards required. If, for example, the journalist were to provide their own analysis or opinion on whatever is being said by the CEO, then we're closer to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. None of the articles that I say fail ORGIND contain Independent Content. The fact that you check the "independent" box above demonstrates to me that you fail to understand what "independent" encompasses as laid out in ORGIND. You cannot check "independent" without the article containing "Independent Content".  HighKing++ 11:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response to : I totally get your point, however I strongly disagree in this particular case with you. As said, using such an interpretation of NCORP standards for Wiki would immediately kill 90% of the articles here. Since when does a company need several extensive investigative portraits in top level media? Or, could you demonstrate a similar case how notability is granted at those levels? Also, please have a look at similar companies, e.g. even from the same category Vendors_of_proprietary_enterprise_search_software. Should this whole section including the listed companies be deleted? From my interpretation of NCORP: I would consider a company notable when several different journalist independently of each other spend their time to speak with a company and want to discover and showcase more about this company, because this company provides an important technology to prevent worldwide money laundering or improves the banking / finance / insurance sector with it.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.