Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixpanel


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Mixpanel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My extensively informed PROD here boldly removed with the sole changes of adding unconvincing sources, here's why: the first source clearly is supplied with interviewed information by the business itself, see "Mr. Cooley was seen as a great catch. He had been an early employee of New Relic, which does software analytics, and had built the sales team to about 150 people....Mr. Doshi said he tried a couple of executive recruiting firms, which run around $80,000, but had no luck. So he decided to do the job himself.". The only uses of actually mentioning that itself is to fluff and puff themselves, and as always, to woo clients and investors to come and look at their business. Surrounding this listed information then goes to state the specifics about both their careers and then the company's and then stating their philosophy and plans. No honest journalist would add or think of mentioning it unless the intentions were to fluff and puff the (quote) "starting company Mixpanel". The next one, TechCrunch (which is notoriously becoming PR-based by companies) only mentions the flashy specifics about what there is to advertise about the company, with only 7 thin paragraphs, putting aside the obvious company-supplied information, there was no actual journalism efforts there. The next TC link not only consists of funding "news", but it goes as far to actually state the specifics about the what business is, how it works, what it looks, etc. and both being supplied by the company information and businesspeople themselves (quote) "The company told us....", that was hardly journalism there. This same article goes to finish with talking about the specifics of investors, again, no actual journalism. The same can be said about the next one, which is equally PR-based as the other, none of it swimming again from the PR pools it bathes in. The last one listed is simply a guide, granted, to show how it works; it's likely not independent coverage and, certainly not guaranteed to be non-PR. I'll state that my PROD was essentially similar with even stating the concerns about the initial information and sources, so if there's simply additional PR to add, that's not saying a lot at all. Also, looking again at the history as I had before, it shows a noticeable underused history, and this was in fact accepted in 2014, clearly enough time to have improved and clearly enough time to suggest that Review was as questionable now as it would have been then; I would not have accepted at all if it was solely PR-based. SwisterTwister  talk  17:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are out there. North America1000 02:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Mixpanel Engage Turns Analytics Into Targeted Messages". Forbes.
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Keep: per sources listed above. Sources like this WSJ piece provide WP:SIGCOV. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of this AfD, I explicitly and clearly stated all of the concerns with the links above because they are the same trivial and PR sources listed in the current article; a Keep vote cannot be substantiated by a "it's sourcing" comment if it is not considering the concerns explicitly stated above; this link above itself consists of PR since it begins with "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company Mixpanel Inc. and has just raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true", that is churnalism by all means because no honest journalist would add that unless they blatantly let the company say it; this exact article goes to specifics about not only the businessman himself but the company and what its plans are (see the blatant "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is not only wooing clients and investors but presumably attempting to woo the journalist); that is another case of no actual journalism efforts because the man himself is supplying everything, the article itself ends with the company supplying information about its current investments; simply because it comes from a national news source is not convincing if the contents themselves are explicitly PR. SwisterTwister   talk  04:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. With the exception of the book source, these are bylined news articles that provide significant coverage, written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources which adhere to journalistic objectivity. The sources are not press releases, nor are they public relations content. Per this coverage, the topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Also, there's a long-time consensus at WP:RSN that the Wall Street Journal is reliable. In addition, there's WP:BIASED. Even if one were to argue that the WSJ piece was biased in some way (toward the company, say), that doesn't disqualify us from using the source or from the source helping the article subject meet WP:GNG. The important thing is that our articles here are neutral. Consistently hearing that bylined news articles at major national newspapers are "churnalism" seems like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument at this point. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Sufficient sourcing. -- Green  C  12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll note my listed and extensive concerns above saying that those exact sources in themselves are not actually convincing because there are PR-based and otherwise influenced by the company itself, especially when it comes to actually mentioning the company's information, services, etc. Simply stating GNG and CORP, without actually looking and considering the coverage (again, after I have analyzed them as shown above) is not the same thing as actually explaining why this Keep vote thinks otherwise. I'll even note that this is not only a business blog, but the header itself contains "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic", that's not something an actually genuine journalist would say, that's exactly what makes that source unconvincing. I'll note that, in the past, I've seen such blatant attempts at masking press releases, that they would list a journalist's name to simply show it for ghost uses. Once again, I'll note the following: After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding. is entirely PR in that it's explicitly and solely advertising what there is to say about the information, the specifics of people involved and then the specifications about what it involved; none of that would come from any other source than the company itself therefore that's not even close to independent coverage. This same article itself then actually goes to contain a photo of him exactly next to this said information, so that essentially hints at being an attempt at not only PR, but an attempt of a job listing, granted, to woo clients and investors, that's what business PR signifies. These Keep vote have not at all even close actually specified where they find the extensive comments unconvincing yet with the concerns all laid. Even then, I'll note something that has been extensively seen here at AfD, and that is that these said major news sources are notoriously becoming baseplaces for PR, and if we have the excuses that they therefore are significant and independent coverage, that is essentially acknowledging and allowing thinly veiled press releases by the sheer fact of "it comes from a news source" (as it is, it has been obviously clear that's exactly what these companies are intending and still plan to intend, by taking advantage of the fact news sources will happily publish anything, especially if there's no means of efforts by the journalist lest risk budget cuts because of it, so the companies offer pre-authored information as "news"), that's exactly what churnalism is, it's therefore still advertising. In a time when Wikipedia is being bombarded enough as it is with advertisements, we must take these matters seriously, by fully considering and acknowledging the concerns, not by thinly defending that they are, again, "news". To add, simply a note abuot the exact quote "doesn't disqualify us from using the source or from the source helping the article subject meet WP:GNG. The important thing is that our articles here are neutral", this is not entirely convincing in that we are in fact able to completely remove and list as unacceptable, a source that is in fact again influenced by the company and is not contributing to any forms or shapes of actual coverage, hence my exhaustive comments above. SwisterTwister   talk  16:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because I reviewed the refs on the article, the refs noted above, and did my own search to confirm that additional indy RS sources exists. The significant coverage meets WP:CORP.  I would also like to again thank the nominator for using the Streisand effect to bring our attention to so many interesting notable companies.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Forbes and WSJ are independent and definitely WP:RS. I don't buy the arguments that simply because a major publication chooses to cover a company that has issued a press release it is advertising. Other sources in addition to those two are icing on the cake.  This might be a snow keep at some point soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I find it astonishing how people argue against the sheer fact of actually analyzing these sources, because it not only shows someone is paying attention to them, but also showing the concerns of them, that's what a nomination is; if anyone is actually upset about this, it's because they are not actually taking in what the concerns of these sources are, not simply because of what's perceived. For example, once again, the Forbes and WallJournal are still in fact containing PR themselves, to quote the Forbes, "Mixpanel already provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement", That is essentially self-advertising the company itself, because it is only focusing with the flashy parts of what there is to know about the company. The other parts of this Forbes then contains information about the company's activities such as fundinding, which is by far expected and trivial if that's the best there is to say about a company (not to mention the sheer fact any hoping-to-establish-ground company will say this. That article then actually continues to then have a stated quote by the businessman himself; finally the other part of that article is then stating how the services work, that is entirely PR from the PR book itself. As it has been shown, the news media's current state is in fact willing to accept company-assisted information, if it means no budget cuts lest there be risks of spent time for journalism, it shows how the current state of news journalism is willing to be used, and it shows by the fact Wikipedia is continuously bombarded by advertising. It is unacceptable to cite WP:BLUDGEON, as that is neither a policy or a behavioral guideline, it's a user-started essay about what was thought by said user. Using that is essentially simply using it an argument, fighting to keep this article, despite its concerns, that is not how the AfD lines should work, if analysis is being shooed away. SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all positive articles are solely PR-worksmanship. Publications will publish positive pieces on companies because a part of their editorial mission is to expose successful businesses. Something not being investigative journalism does not automatically make it trivial or not a reliable source. Also, of course Forbes is going to cover funding for a new company, that's what a business publication does. You might not like that fact that Forbes or WSJ choose to run articles like these, but that doesn't change the fact that they as editorially independent and very noteworthy sources do in fact chose to do so. That meets the criteria of WP:RS. If these were just press release recycling factories that would be one thing, but they are generally respected business publications. I'd be more open to your argument if it was just one of them, but being the subject of articles in both clearly meet the standard required by WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Article quality could use some clean-up, but the subject matter appears to be verifiable enough per WP:GNG to merit an article. -- Jayron 32 15:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- when "the investment values the company at $865 million" this begins to approach a level of significance, and WP:TOOSOON no longer applies. I see them discussed as a leading player in the space, so they are likely to become more notable in the future. I'll go ahead and clean up the promo language. I think this is acceptable as a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been consensus here at AfD that $865 million is not alone convincing for notability in and of itself; it may perhaps be different if it was a multi-billion dollar company, but even then we would not only need non-PR coverage, but enough to level a both notable and non-advert article; I myself noted the businessman's interview above where he himself counted the company as a "billion dollar company" but that's not independent since it's not only his own words, but his own attempts at company PR. Suggesting that they may be notable soon, is still thin if there are still concerns now; we cannot compromise perceived information for the risks of PR and otherwise advertorial coverage. That said, noting WP:GNG is enough (while may be common at AfDs) can and has in the past been outweighed by the facts of removing PR and advertisements alone, which is not only damaging to Wikipedia, but to its meaning and significance as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  19:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per existence of bylined reliable sources under independent editorial review. The content of these sources being "poorly written" by the opinion of one wikipedian, or containing content that is disagreeable or boring or irrelevant to some, does not matter.  ST's claim that "$865 million is not alone convincing" is correct... merely having $865 million is not notable.  However, independent secondary sources reporting on the fact that someone has $865 million, that IS notable.  Simply by being talked about by multiple reliable sources is the very criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability.  Reliable sources discussing someone, not the validity of their discussion.  Otherwise we could delete all the articles on the Kardassians, because who can really argue that the discussion on THOSE idiots is valid?  But everyone talks about them, so they are notable.  Likewise here.  Fieari (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - A comment noting that they criticize other comments listed here but yet suggests that we keep this because we keep the "idiots Kardassians" is not suggestive or relevant here to this AfD alone (this AfD has become overpersonal with personal comments as it is); the fact I have noted my concerns and concerns that we need to take seriously, instead of making WP:OSE arguments, is why my concerns have still not be acknowledged to the level that they need to. Once Wikipedia becomes a PR platform simply because we accepted shoehorned "news" (I'll note that I mentioned the supposedly called "bylined acceptable sources....independent editorial review" is not answering the concerns I specifically noted above that the contents themselves were PR and PR alone in the fact the company supplied the information about themselves, including the fact information only the company would know such as what their plans are and where their own money is going, any of that actually being called news is exactly what damns Wikipedia because, whereas this is intended to be an actual encyclopedia, advertisements should not be given the benefit of doubts or accepted at all. SwisterTwister   talk  03:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument. I'm arguing that I don't care about the contents of the articles except to the fact that they are about the subject, they are independently written, and bylined under editorial review.  Because that's the inclusion standard, not the subjective quality of the articles.  PR does not mean what you seem to think it means.  PR is non-independent writing, by the subject, for the subject.  A positive article by someone else is not PR by definition.  If a secondary source buys into someone's PR, that does not make the secondary source PR!  A secondary source is not, and CANNOT be PR, because PR is defined as being written by the one benefiting from it (or having someone paid to do the writing, which amounts to the same thing).  Secondary sources are not advertising, unless they were paid to be written by the beneficiary.  If Mixpanel did not write the article, if Mixpanel did not pay the secondary sources to write the article, it is not advertising, regardless of how positive the article is. Fieari (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of analysis, what makes it PR is the fact the CEO himself talked about what his plans were and what his plans were now about the company, that is the businessman advertising the company himself. Also "provides its customers with detailed data about every action or click that a user takes on a website or mobile app. In an increasing trend, the company believes in moving from a metric of page views to measuring engagement" is something from a sales pitch, because it glorifies what the company believes of itself ("the company believes in moving"). Also, there's "He plans to build a large team specializing in artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of growing from 100 to 250 or so employees during the next year", that is also the man himself advertising the company himself, because that's company-supplied information, in that it's his own thoughts and comments about the company itself, not the journalist's or news publisher's. Simply because not every comment may seem like a blatant advertisement is not saying it's not or that it's guaranteed to be non-PR influenced. See again "Mixpanel Lures Top Sales Executive From New Relic" and "After pursuing his target, Matt Cooley, for months, he persuaded Mr. Cooley to leave his position as head of sales at New Relic Inc., a company that is valued at more than $1 billion and is believed to be headed for an IPO, for Mixpanel, a Y Combinator graduate that has become profitable with about $12 million in funding" also "Suhail Doshi has big dreams for his mobile and Web analytics company....raised $65 million from Andreessen Horowitz to make them come true" (this last one not only advertises what the man's thoughts are, but it advertises those and the person who funded the money), that is not only advertising the company's own achievements and what became of it, but then advertising what there is to know about the company's financing. If a news source goes to specifics about a company's finances and what the businessman's own thoughts are, that is not (quote) "independently written, and bylined under editorial review"; this is exactly what churnalism is, mirroring "news" by using news sources. SwisterTwister   talk  19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, because these concerns have not been taken genuinely or with serious acknowledgement, it's suggested they are simply sticking with their "but there's sources" comments, this would benefit from a relisting to allow better taking in and considering to my concerns above.


 * 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.