Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartRecruiters


 * 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. Despite a superficially large number of references provided, most analysis of them done by participants leads to basically everything failing WP:ORGCRIT, a guideline specifically formulated to prevent establishing business notability primarily based on marketing materials and passing mentions. The sources available do not seem to currently establish sufficient notability based on in-depth independent coverage, that would allow a neutral encyclopedic article without original research. It appears that the informed consensus of uninvolved users supports deletion. ~ mazca  talk 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

SmartRecruiters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Coverage is in unreliable sources (forbes/sites/) or is not independent. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Good sources:  OK sources:   Sources that discuss mergers but don't contribute to GNG:    These are from the Google news search above. Three pages in and I had enough. There are also a lot of mentions of the company in other sources. Sometimes these are mentions of highly placed staff commenting on hiring principles. Other times they're discussing technology. Overall, easily meets GNG even if the article is poorly sourced and written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Walter's assessment. The company is more than notable given it's presence in the bay area and variety of sources avaialble. Most companies and startups of that scale typically have Wikipedia articles including their competitors such as Jobvite, Greenhouse Software etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmehta21 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete one "good" source is from Forbes sites, basically blog hosted in Forbes, other is all "according to press release" with the minimum of analysis. As our new WP:ORGCRIT guideline says, "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant."; notes about forbes sites: "Most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials" and so on. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG.  HighKing++ 22:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with both above comments. This article meets GNG easily and that can be proved by a simple google search where there are 40-50 third party websites with information on the company. A few of the sources here are TIME, Huffington Post, Fast Company, INC., and CIO. The links to the sources can be found at the bottom of their homepage (https://www.smartrecruiters.com/). There's in-depth third party information on at least four of these independant sources. In fact, every competitor that they have of similar scale has a Wikipedia page i.e. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Software, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobvite). I think while the article is somewhat of a stub, it meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.Ajmehta21 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — Ajmehta21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also a SPA who extensively edited the topic, such as creating the Hiring Success Conference, which is related to the article under discussion. Currently a redirect to it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources have in-depth third party information? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you've removed my comment from your talk page; what relationship do you have with the company? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no relationship with the company. It's just an industry I know a lot about and it seemed as if a company with sizable market share in the recruiting space should have public information about it. Here's some sources that I believe prove clear notability.
 * Techcrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/30/smartrecruiters-raises-30-million-for-hiring-software/
 * Techcrunch 2: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/31/berlins-jobspotting-acquired-by-sfs-smartrecruiters-for-undisclosed-sun/
 * Time: http://time.com/3818643/heres-why-tuesday-is-the-best-day-for-job-seekers/
 * CIO: https://www.cio.com/article/3198085/careers-staffing/the-future-of-job-hunting-is-more-spotify-less-craigslist.html
 * HRTechnologist: https://www.hrtechnologist.com/news/talent-assessment/smartrecruiters-releases-free-recruiting-software-for-small-businesses/
 * FastCompany: https://www.fastcompany.com/3044654/why-you-are-most-likely-to-get-hired-on-a-tuesday
 * Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianrashid/2017/05/12/the-best-hr-software-for-your-business/#5c7cfd375c7c Ajmehta21 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources that use their study, or quote them or interview them don't count as coverage as they're not looking into the company and writing about it independantly; the coverage needs to be about the company, its history and so on, so we can write about it. Forbes sites is as I said above not a permissible source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. *None* of those sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Why do the Techcrunch articles not count then? I read WP:CORPDEPTH and it seems to meet all of the criteria to be considered an independent source. Clearly, there is some gray area here considering that almost all businesses are quoted to some degree in articles and pieces of news around them. I checked the Wikipedia page of their competitors such as Greenhouse, Jobvite, Lever, and those seem to all have sources that have quotes too. Why aren't those pages being contested for deletion as well? Ajmehta21 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those article do not count because the *content* needs to be "intellectually independent*. Nobody has said that TechCrunch is not an independent source - it is. What is being said is that the criteria for establishing notability requires that the articles are intellectually independent. Take a read of WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:ORGIND as well? In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the articles must pass the test of being "intellectually independent". This TechCrunch article is simply repeating messages provided by the company. You can tell because it uses phrases like "SmartRecruiters thinks...", "The team deflected when asked about IPO possibilites" as well as the quotes from the CEO and from their investors. Definitely not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. This TechCrunch reference fails for similar reasons since it uses data/information provided by the company and the article relies on quotations from the CEO. There is no "independent" opinion or analysis provided by the journalist whatsoever. If you feel other articles fail notability, you are free to nominate them for deletion.  HighKing++ 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Evan1990 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.81.122 (talk)
 * — 12.203.81.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This IP has also attempted to remove the AfD template . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete While there are 201 articles on Factiva, they do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, the content supplied is not independent of the source, or the source is not WP:RS. Keep Based on the forbes and techcrunch articles... but only just.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I posted above why the Tech Crunch articles fails WP:ORGIND (they're not "intellectually independent" which is a requirement adopted in March/April 2018). The Forbes article fails WP:RS as it is essentially published without editorial oversight and are solely the opinions of the contributors (i.e. a Blog). Can you take another look and consider your !vote again?  HighKing++ 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  HighKing</b>- That may be true, However..... I've just run a search on Factiva and found 201 articles on there referring to or directly featuring this company, including at least 4 from Forbes, two from Wall Street Journal, and many others. I've added added some of them, but I can add more if its felt needed. Considering this, I'm leaving it at "keep". Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: None of the sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, Forbes is forbes.com/site which is a user submitted area, not editorial content; possibly a promo placement. Techcrunch is way too indiscriminate to count towards notability in tech. The rest of the sources are likewise non-independent / WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Amount of SPA activity on this AfD is concerning. The IP and Special:Contributions/Ajmehta21 are both SPAs focused on this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I take offense in being called an SPA here - SmartRecruiters was my first attempt to write a full article and I've edited about 6-7 different articles all in different areas and categories. I'd appreciate if I was not labeled simply by my most recent work when I have contributions to many other pages given that I am new around here. Ajmehta21 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have done a Factiva search on this company and there are *201* articles on there for Smartrecruiters, some featuring the company, others referring to it - including a number from Forbes, and at least one from The Wall Street Journal. Seems like plenty of references, many of them seem to refer to the company as an innovated in the industry. I've added a few, but there are plenty of more in there to be added if people feel the need at this point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, but can you please provide references/links? Otherwise this argument is similar to WP:GHITS. It is not the volume of references but the quality. Volume can simply be indicative of a good PR department (which, btw, appears to me to be the case). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there's volume *and* some quality in the FACTIVA results. I've put a couple in, I'll whack some more in when I get the chance. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's two sources found on Google Scholar that meet and challenge the above discussions (found via Google Scholar)
 * Schaeffer, Anaïs. "CERN modernises its recruitment process." and (2016).
 * Hayat, Syed Aftab. "A survival strategy for small businesses: The need to adapt global HR practices." Global Journal of Human Resource Management 2.2 (2014): 13-24.
 * Ajmehta21 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Forgive me, I reformatted your references so that the appear with your comment - otherwise as more comments are added, they'd be disconnected. Also, no, neither of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first reference can also be found here on the Cern website. Cern are a customer and therefore this reference is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND. The second reference can be accessed here. While I have no idea why you reference pages 13-24, the only mention (on page 19) states "These may include initiatives such as SmartRecruiters, iKrut, OpenCATS, Weebly and SoftGarden." This fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a mere mention-in-passing. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:40, 4 May 2018 (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, Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This Forbes article about the subject was written by a "Vice-President and Principal Analyst at Atherton Research, a global technology consulting and intelligence firm helping clients plan, build and deliver successful go-to-market strategies," which makes it rather suspicious for bias.  But this one, written by magazine staff, goes on extensively about SmartRecruiters and cites its data work. Yes, this report on BusinessWire is not more than a press release,  but then The Wall Street Journal reports on the company's IPO, which it does not do for every TD&H. All in all, the citations that count enable the subject to barely yet clearly meet the required notability criteria for a corporation. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm against paid editing in Wikipedia and even more so against promotional and advertising. So, my opinion is offered with a sprinkling of self disgust at it. Still, N is N, while the quality of an article can always be improved. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Response/Comment, thank you for those references. But still, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. This Forbes article written by the VP and PA at Atherton Research fails WP:RS as it clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" therefore not under editorial control and this type of article is regarded as a Blog post or equivalent. This next Forbes reference is a report *based* on "The number SmartRecruiters pulled" .... "all from the company's own job search platform". It does not "go on extensively" about the company - rather it goes on extensively about the data provided by the company. The article is not intellectually independent and does not provide an in-depth opinion on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The announcement by the WSJ fails as it is "trivial coverage" WP:CORPDEPTH and it is based on company announcements/press releases fails WP:ORGIND. The criteria for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is *different* than the criteria for citing references to support facts within an article. Most of the references you have mentioned would meet the requirements for supporting facts within an article but they fail the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. My "keep" opinion just got weaker. -The Gnome (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've now added three new articles from Forbes, two new references form the Wall Street Journal, and an article from the Washington Post. As mentioned, there are *plenty* of references for this company on the Factiva news service. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment/Response I note that you don't bother to check for links to the articles you add. While it isn't mandatory it takes very little effort on your part and helps keep articles easy to read. Just because you use Factiva doesn't mean that a little search on Google won't turn up the article. For the convenience of everyone else here at this AfD, here are the references you added: 1. WSJ is a review of a number of different websites with SmartRecruiters mentioned at the end. This reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it provides no in-depth information on the company. 2. Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as it simply relies on a quotation from the founder/CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it provides no in-depth information on the company. 3. Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as the author "touched base with end-to-end talent acquisition platform SmartRecruiters" for "internal data" which the "company recently released" and the report is based on this data along with quotations from the CEO, is not intellectually independent. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is not an in-depth piece on the company. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b> I think there is no need to be narky about, *ahem* WP:CIVIL. As for the articles, I agree, you are correct. I've been through all the Factiva artciles, none of them really meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are generally eiher quoting someone from Smartrecruiters, so are not independent, or they are not an indepth analysis of smartrecruiters, but instead discussing some data they have provided. Either that, or they don't qualify as WP:RS. So I will change my vote to delete. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be close to the truth to admit that I was narky at having to chase down the references you found using Factiva and even narkier when I realised they clearly failed the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps a little bit of "narkey" spilled over and I wondered why you were making the process extra difficult but it was not aimed at you personally. I'm completely narky-free today though and thank you for reviewing the Factiva references and thank you again for reviewing your previous !vote. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, all good man, and you did some good work here. Next time I'll make sure the links are also in the afd. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks HighKing for doing the analysis of the sources, with which I agree with. People should actually check the sources for depth rather than adding mere mentions which are not helpful nor count towards notability (i.e number of Factiva hits is meaningless; if they are all mentions/not really about the company they don't count for anything) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (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.