Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oktopost


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oktopost

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, promotional; based on press releases. The Times of Israel article is actually a write-up from their web supplement on start-ups, and just as promotional as any paid advertisement. It was accepted from AfC after removal of promotional content, which has since been restored, but even the accepted version in the history did not have reliable sources.  DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several additional references added, including Rampton J. Effective Lead Generation Through B2B Market Research and Social Automation Tools. Forbes. 05/23/2015, which appears to contain independent coverage assessment of Oktopost. Article under reconstruction, to precisely attain the same structure and level of referencing as at least 4 other similar company/software market segment articles. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) updated FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The references, as noted above, are little better than press releases, and nothing better pops up in internet searches. Specific sites searches showed zero hits at Haaretz/TheMarker, and a trivial mention at Jpost. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, what are the other 4 articles you have in mind as comparisons> There's a good possibility they also need to be deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Since we are aware that AfD does not utilize cross-article comparisons, my comment is best taken as an intent to reconstruct the article from the ground up, by using a technique of parallelism of structure and referencing. I have compared roughly 30 articles in this category. I started with the behemoth in the category, Hootsuite. Hootsuite's Alexa rank is 128, Oktopost's Alexa is 98,295, so I went right to the very top end to look at its sourcing basis. The structural parallelism upgrade will select the best available articles in the category. I hope this answers your question head on. My point isn't to make a big deal of the cross-article issue, but to try to leverage adequate time to address the necessary upgrade process. DGG, I would very much appreciate being able to factor in your take on the newly added Rampton reference . Where do you assess that citation? Unlike Times of Israel, it seems to be an both independent and reliable. However, I acknowledge that there is an annotation that, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" and I also concede that there is subjectivity as to whether the source's brevity of relevant analytic information content is adequate depth of treatment to establish notability. Where do you place the Forbes source on that continuum, please? FeatherPluma (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hootsuite article is quite promotional. Essentially every company in the area was founded because of the founder "Finding that there was no product in the market offering all the features he sought," I note the phrases "following rumors" "prominent angel investors" "plans to transfer" "an employee informed" "customers included" "Hootsuite's team continues to contact media organizations to help them manage their online brands,"  " over 1000 Ambassadors represent the brand all over the world." All of these are common promotional wording. Consider: " a variety of social media services, including Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Mixi. "  -- all such systems support all common social media platforms.  As for Forbes, Rampton often does good analyses. In this particular post, however, he just reprints the companies' own descriptions of themselves. (And the paragraph on Oktopost says exactly that at the bottom-- "Source: Oktopost"  I've learned to read press stories on companies all the way to the bottom.   And I do not judge promotionalism  by personal impressions--I judge by objective features.
 * More generally, I checked the category, and I do not consider there is any fully satisfactory article on social media. Some of the shorter ones are purely factual but fail to show notability.  Some where there are controversy like Klout have at least substantial npov content.  Real, not manufactured controversy tends to result in  good articles in the press. Good articles in the press make possible good WP articles.   DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Hi, I agree with you. The writing on the wall is 10 feet high: we delete this article, and move on. As you probably noticed, my initial input on this page was just to line up with a "Delete" comment, and move on. Intellectually, however, I am very interested over the long haul of experience on Wikipedia in exploring potential dissimilarities of application of core principles between different categories of article. This AfD is not the place to expound on things though. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2015 (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.