Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parse (company)


 * 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. Consensus is leaning to keep, after research provided by Cunard. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 14:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Parse (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Sbwoodside (creator) with the following rationale "Establishing notability through citations." Through new cites have been added, I do not believe they address the issue. The citations focus on business-as-usual, routine coverage events: the company got initial funding (TechCrunch reports funding for all technology startups), and then got bought by Facebook, which was also acknowledged in trade journals covering tech companies (primarily TechCrunch again). Wired mentioned the company in passing. Nothing here suggests that the sources and coverage pas the NCOMPANY threshold. In particular, see the "Depth of coverage", "Organizations notable only for one event" and "Audience" sections (the former discuss why routine coverage is not sufficient, and the latter notes that coverage should be in non-niche, non-local, non-trade journal-level sources), also keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not associated with Parse. Parse is an important company for application developers as it is the best-known Backend as a Service company (BaaS). I was surprised that Parse was not covered by Wikipedia so I added it. I do not support this idea that companies cannot be covered unless they are featured in the New York Times. Companies are an important part of the world and need to be covered in Wikipedia. The article as it stands is by no means an advertisement, it simply states facts about Parse in an encyclopedic manner. There has more certainly been much deeper content written about Parse. This article is a stub and can therefore be expanded by other editors. I suspect that there is some form of anti-corporate or anti-stub philosophy behind the move to delete this article and, as a long-time wiki editor, I think that this is a part of what I would call the overall "deletionist" movement that is making it difficult for people to add new articles and therefore increase wikipedia's coverage of important areas like technology startup businesses. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument. However, WP:NCOMPANY is an established guideline; if you don't accept it, propose it for deletion or discuss how to change its criteria on talk. I'll also ping User:DGG, because I think he may want to say a word or two regarding your stated goal of "increas[ing] wikipedia's coverage of important areas like technology startup businesses". Personally, I think we are spammed by unimportant, unencyclopedic technology startup business spam entries that have no place in an encyclopedia. We are not Yellow Pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been active for a while on the wiki and it seems as though the deletionist movement has become quite prominent. However, although I am an inclusionist, I will simply respond to the concerns listed above by User:Piotrus point by point. Cited is WP:NCOMPANY. A close reading of that guidelines gives the following subsections, which I will deal with individually. WP:ORGIN: There are currently 413 articles included in the CrunchBase database of articles about Parse. Notability only requires that these are published, not that they are cited in the article. WP:ORGSIG: Parse's impact on fields of human endeavour has been documented already in the originally cited articles. These might seem unimportant (to push back with the inverse of WP:ITSIMPORTANT) to a non-software developer, but that does not discount their impact on technology. It's documented and published. WP:INHERITORG: Parse's importance does not result from its purchase by Facebook. The inverse is the case. WP:CORPDEPTH: The sources cited are important within the technology industry, this can be easily verified by checking their audience figures. WP:AUD: The sources cited are national or international. WP:ORGIND: the sources cited are respected independent business and technology journalism. WP:ILLCON: does not apply.
 * To deal with the suggestion that I challenge the established guideline: I'm not sure why one has suggested that, it seems like a rather extreme action to take and I have no plans in that regard. The guidelines seems appropriate to me.
 * Regarding spam, the article as first written was not written like an advertisement, it simply stated facts that were backed up by the citations which came from independent secondary sources.
 * Regarding the Yellow Pages, the article as originally written contained no contact information.
 * More generally I am concerned about an assumption towards stub and start articles, that if there are only a handful of citations, that more citations do not exist. This appears to be a "guilty until proven innocent" rule, which is highly problematic for many reasons that have been discussed throughout history.Sbwoodside (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references are routine notices or press releases, neither of which show notability . We have a long standing practice of deleting articles on beginning entertainers and the like using the shorthand TOOSOON, or Not Yet Notable. This applies also to almost all start up companies, and its time we became more rigorous at this--and we are gradually getting there.  The way we apply guidelines is the actual guideline not the printed text, and the way we apply the COMPANY guidelinei s becoming stricter.  Here, as the company has been purchased by a much larger company, it will never even have a chance to become notable.  DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was going to suggest User:Sbwoodside starts List of Facebook acquisitions based on List of Google acquisitions and copies the content there, but I see List of mergers and acquisitions by Facebook exists (just a redirect was missing). I think that list needs a field for "reason for acquisition" or "notes", where all such content would be safely merged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, I am not aware of any such long standing practice applying to startup companies, it would be helpful when citing such a practice to provide a link to the relevant WP page. If there is an 'actual guideline' then surely in a community which can communicate only through text, the 'actual guideline' must be written down. The notability of a company is independent of its ownership. Parse continues to operate as an independent entity and its business is more or less completely separate from that of its parent. Parse's notability is not particularly derived from Facebook, was established prior to the acquisition and continues to follow along Parse's business which is in a different space from Facebook. Of course I would assume that one who is proposing deletion of an article will perform basic due diligence research on the companies in question, so hopefully it is merely stating what would be obvious information to anyone contemplating this AfD. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the practice like most of our practices is not codified, but the trend of decisions at arb com; the written policies sometimes have very little relation to what actually happens. We make our own policies, and we can if we choose make them case-by-case, paying greater attention to whatever guidelines seem to fit and interpreting as we think the situation requires; in the matter of deletions at afd, looking back for the 8 years I've been here, we have always been inconsistent, and gone case by case on the view taken at that time on their individual merits. The GNG leads inevitably to this approach, for the interpretations of the key words   "substantial" and "independent"  are not capable of being stated precisely. Over the last year or two, the trends has certainly been to interpret them much more strictly to new companies, especially new internet companies.
 * I would much rather have true quantitative determinable standards relating to the company size and  other measurable factors, but the community has not yet supported this approach.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you consider to be a new company? How old would it be?
 * With respect to "The references are routine notices or press releases" -- perhaps you would be willing to review the updated references and my response to User:Piotrus and update your opinion about whether this article should be deleted. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Notability_(organizations_and_companies): numerous news articles about the same event (company's acquisition by facebook) do not satisfy the requirement for coverage in multiple sources, as said coverage should concern more than one event. Also, getting funded and getting acquired is routine business word dealings, not enough to make the company notable. Again, I see nothing that makes this company merit a stand alone article, where an entry on the Facebook list of acquisitions is sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." I agree that trivial mentions of a company's getting funded and getting acquired is routine business. But if sources provide "deep coverage" (which is the case here), then the company is considered notable under the "deep coverage" standard. And in this case, there are numerous sources about the company's history and products that are unrelated to the funding and acquisition. DGG writes: "the practice like most of our practices is not codified, but the trend of decisions at arb com; the written policies sometimes have very little relation to what actually happens". DGG believes that most reliable sources that discuss companies are routine or press releases so unusable to establish notability. This is not codified in the guidelines because there is little consensus for them. See Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Perion Network.  Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.   <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parse to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The sources are listed chronologically. The VentureBeat articles by Rebecca Grant on 26 July 2012 and 11 September 2012 are not about the funding and predate the acquisition. The 26 September 2012 Business Insider article by Matt Lynley is not about the funding and predates the acquisition.  The Wall Street Journal and PC Magazine articles in April 2013 discuss the Facebook acquisition.  Josh Constine's 5 September 2013 TechCrunch article and Frederic Lardinois's 9 September 2014 TechCrunch article discusses Parse's products.  Fortune magazine published a 25 March 2015 article discussing that Parse "is a big deal for the Internet of things".  A company that has received sustained coverage from 2012–2015 clearly passes Notability and Notability (organizations and companies).  Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep if at all now (or perhaps delete for now and draft and userfy and allow a restart later) because of Cunard's listed sources or else I would've said delete as not yet notable. and, are you aware of the albeit few but notable publishers sources?  SwisterTwister   talk  06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If User:DGG concurs, I am prepared to withdraw this nom. The Fortune ref is good, and TechCrunch for example still provides in-depth coverage of this after the acquisition. User:Cunard's sources here seem pretty good in rescuing the subject. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for reviewing the sources. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The Grant article in Venture Beat is marked "Promoted Stories" Am I right that this indicates its a press release? DGG - 6:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The Grant article in VentureBeat is not a press release. "Promoted Stories" refers to the six links below the article that are "Recommended by Outbrain". None of those six stories are published by VentureBeat. There is a "Promoted Stories" section at the bottom of every VentureBeat article. The Huffington Post (and many other websites) has something similar. Click on any article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/business/ and scroll to the bottom of the article, which says "You May Like Around the Web" (by Gravity) and lists nine promoted links. VentureBeat has a similar concept with its promoted stories section.  Cunard (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * in other words, it' apparently an article which has been the subject of PR efforts. If the Huntington Post does that also, it confirms by doubts that it too is not reliable for notability of companies.  DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. "Promoted Stories" refers to Online advertising at the bottom of the non-PR article. It does not refer to articles published by VentureBeat and The Huffington Post. The New York Times has plenty of online advertising too on its webpages. That advertising does not make The New York Times's articles unreliable. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Promoted Stories" is a widget on the page VentureBeat which has nothing to do with the article. It's like a sidebar, except at the bottom. --Sbwoodside (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some sources are bad. So remove them. Other sources are much better and disprove argument that businesses should be removed. Businesses tend to be more notable than people on here. Handily meets GNG. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 27 November 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.