Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KumoSpace


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The main points of contention are whether the NYT coverage is significant and whether the TechCrunch article is independent. This is ultimately down to subjective judgment, and since all of the discussion is policy-based, we look to the numerical tally which is slightly in favor of keeping but not quite enough to declare a consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

KumoSpace

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This does not seem to pass Notability (organizations and companies) and is written like an advertisement- most of 'Workflow' section should be removed, and most of 'History' is PR speak, which leaves very little for an article.  Qcne  (talk)  18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.
 * There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.
 * There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.
 * My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Additional analysis of how well the references available on this subject meet, or do not meet, the relevant guidelines such as WP:N and WP:CORP would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per CNMall41 Andre🚐 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment is concerning. We use our judgment comparing guidelines to available sources to see if they meet those guidelines. We cannot simply vote contrary to those guidelines because we feel they are "imperfect." That is circumventing Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IDLI would apply here and should be avoided. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging your concern, however I stand by my comment. As I previously wrote in regards to a political article, having a single quote (for example) should not be enough to invalidate an entire article on the basis of being primary. This coverage from MIT's Tech Review is additional to NYTimes' article which is also discussed by others above (I am merely in agreement with A. B. upon reviewing it), and other sources. Plus the considerable foreign sources add support for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you are standing behind your comment to not follow a guideline you feel is imperfect? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am standing by my comments above, particularly the original review where I supported keeping the article. - Indefensible (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split on consensus between delete and keep. Relisting for another go around Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Du<b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. It is notable that the Keep !voters above pretty much acknowledge that the sources don't meet NCORP. Most of the information discusses the "newness" of the VR experience and the software, there's no Independent Content about the company and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. After making some research in line with WP:BEFORE, it’ s evident that Kumospace is primarily recognized as a software program and multiple sources treat it as such (quite often naming it as an alternative to Zoom). I also count as reliable sources the research scholarly papers from universities around the globe which explores/examines this soft, e.g. how Kumospace impacts Grade 9 students’ academic performance (published in the double-blind peer-reviewed American Journal of Education and Technology. As for me, it is important to keep in mind that as the article is not about the company only, but also about the software. Thus, it seems to meet the WP:GNG. I also slightly rearrange the page's structure. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I struggle to see how the NYT article could possibly be used to support any coverage-based criteria for evaluating N, given that it hardly has any information about KumoSpace, much less "directly and in detail". The TechCrunch article, on the other hand, is for the most part "Martin says", "Martin posits", "Martin stresses", "Martin argues". Martin being Brett Martin, co-founder and president of the company, it is unclear how we should consider it independent. E-Palli is not listed as a predatory publisher, but there are indications that suggest that it dubious. I am not convinced that any of its journals should be considered RS, and I am not aware of its inclusion in relevant indicies. In any case, despite being independent, it is most certainly also WP:PRIMARY, both of which are required in SIRS. I can't find a basis for lower standards for software as put forward by BoraVoro and Old-AgedKid (the WP:NSOFT essay notably directs us to WP:NPRODUCT for commercial software) and the general notability guideline is actually quite similar, if not quite so explicit about the required depth to be considered significant (understandably so, since the primary criteria of the SNGs were how it was originally formulated. I don't see an argument for retention that aligns with the relevant guidelines, so I will have to recommend a delete. (edit conflict)  yeah probably my fault for taking so long but y'all could leave some of this stuff in OAFD for like a day or so, grumble grumble Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The combination of substantial NYT coverage, a TechCrunch feature, and multiple other independent sources makes this a clear keep in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's your problem right there. We don't combine sources for the purposes of meeting the criteria. We need multiple sources whereby *each* source meets *all* the criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , based on your limited participation on Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could expand on how NYT, TechCrunch, and (multiple) other sources meet WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Techcrunch, in the form of actual bylined editorial articles (versus Crunchbase and so on) is a significant source of original reporting on technology companies and (despite many objections to the boosterish tone in this discussion and elsewhere) is usually considered the main source of news on technology companies. The feature there is significant, independent, reliable and secondary.
 * A major NYT Magazine feature obviously meets all four criteria, the NYT magazine is one if the most high profile sources in the English language. Thus the argument taking place here is if the subject's inclusion in this feature is a passing mention or a significant part of the article. My judgement is that it's significant, but it's certainly arguable.
 * The combination of those two, plus other credible citations, meets notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There seems to be confusion about SIRS. While TechCrunch is a reliable source, the one cited is a routine announcement of funding with churnalism. For New York Times, this is not about KumoSpace. It talks about it in briefly in context with virtual meetings so it fails SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'd prefer to keep it. I enjoyed the interesting discussion and do see the issues with "multiple reliable sources", and an argument that some non-fiction books describe the software. I also cannot say that the New York Times newspaper merely mentions it briefly. Their media coverage is comprehensive enough to write a short, neutral article about kumospace on Wikipedia, if to apply such a verification method. However, that's not my point. I was surprised to find out that kumospace is already a part of several university courses (Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London) on "Profile Building/Networking". Specifically, an entire session is dedicated to kumospace software, while Cambridge University uses kumospace for teaching its Networking course. This, in itself, speaks to its notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.