Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maropost (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While this on a pure nose count could plausibly be a "no consensus", I note the discrepancy between the support for the respective arguments between those arguing "keep" (in many cases, bare assertions of being notable without explanation of why), and the in-depth analyses provided by many who argued for deletion. I also did not fail to notice that many of the accounts arguing to keep are quite new. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Maropost
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources in the article are insufficient, as shown below:

I am likewise unable to find multiple sources that describe this company in-depth from independent reliable secondary sources. As such, I believe that this article should be deleted for failure to meet the relevant notable criteria at WP:NCORP in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a lot of new editors not considering the source table put together by the nominator and contradicting his assessment without offering any concrete examples of sources they believe estabish notability. Just stating "passes/meets GNG" without providing any examples that establish notability is not a helpful contribution to a deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, India,  and Canada. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The page has the minimum level of notable sources to pass GNG and remain in Wikipedia --Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable company and appears to be sufficiently covered to meet WP:GNG. --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom. This is a for-profit corporation. Per WP:NCORP, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. As such, for-profit companies are not evaluated by GNG, but instead by the higher sourcing standards for notability. I'd ask those who claim that this passes a particular notability standard to explicitly state the sources they believe get the company over the hump so that others can evaluate their reasoning; I've already analyzed the sources in the article above and I don't really see any specific pushback against that analysis either based on contesting it directly or finding sources not mentioned in it that contribute towards the company's notability. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- The article needs some work and more sources, but the company is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 不和の林檎 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources that you believe show that this meets WP:NCORP? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete' I didn't find any reliable source which makes it notable. ☆★ Sanjeev Kumar   ( talk ) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG at least. I've added several reliable sources (launch of da vinci platform -MartechSeries and a Bloomberg article) and a line about Maropost Ventures (sources are with passing mentions but it's enough to mention a venture arm of the company). Assirian cat (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep just added a good source to Foundr.com. I think the subject has enough highligting in RS for being kept on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsans2 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment lean delete per nom's source assessment. Some additional sources have been added since then, but they don't appear to be substantive.-KH-1 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per revised source analysis below.-KH-1 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment thanks for relisting the discussion, which is quite okay, I would say. For instance, this newly added Bloomberg source is a good one in establishing the subject's notability. Tsans2 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Keep though many of the sources within the article fail the criteria of NCORP being either based entirely on funding announcements or connected to the company (failing WP:ORGIND). But, several sources might meet the strict criteria (I've already added some into the article). For instance, the first is the article commenting on Forrester Research annual B2B Summit (November 2021), where Forrester analyzed marketing automation technologies needed for emerging companies and included Maropost with its competitors (Thryv, Act-On, Keap in its session “How To Integrate The Six Most Essential Technologies At An Emerging Company”. The second is Forrester Research report (2016) “When To Choose A Niche Email Vendor Continuous Improvement: The Email Marketing Playbook” where Maropost was covered . Analyst reports were specifically mentioned by me, as they are meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Getlatka SaaS database estimates Maropost to have a $1.7B valuation (supposedly based on its own metrics like Forbes/Inc. does). And Bootstrappers says the same  As such and together with the other press coverage there are sufficient references and the topic passes WP:GNG/WP:NCORP Loewstisch (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to the claim that valuation makes a company notable per se, WP:ORGSIG notes that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. Notability for corporations need to be demonstrated by significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources, not by its size or how subjectively important we think it is.
 * With respect to the sources you claim provide WP:NCORP levels of coverage, please see my sourceassess table below. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom. I've compiled an updated source analysis to describe all sources in the article and in this discussion, including those that have been added after I first nominated this. The source analysis is as follows:


 * WP:ORGIND explicitly notes that Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability include press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials as well as any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources; arguments that such materials establish notability is contrary to firmly established community consensus and frankly should be discarded by the closer as such. And, as noted before, WP:ORGCRIT is explicit in that the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability and that sources need special considerations that are not always in play when doing a simple GNG analysis. As such, as this does not appear to pass WP:NCORP, I am still in support of deleting this article in light of WP:DEL-REASON, which is to say that this article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for corporations and organizations. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Categorically fails WP:ORGCRIT per the cogent source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2022 (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.