Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spredfast (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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Spredfast
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deletion is conceivable here again as in May, because the sources now are simply only published and republished business announcements, quotes, financials and other triviality, the author has also confirmed they're an employee after they requested my re-review, but considering there's still nothing significant, it's unacceptable in our policies. Beyond this, there's simply nothing else different and thus still suggesting at a business listing, making WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing apply. SwisterTwister  talk  21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Just corporate blurb written by COI. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep It was written as a commercial, but it does get ample coverage in reliable sources such as Fortune magazine and others.   D r e a m Focus  00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That itself is a clear business announcement, it's not the substance we classify as policy-convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  00:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't just some short mention there. That is significant coverage.  It counts towards WP:NOTABILITY.   D r e a m Focus  00:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The exact contents from that link: Spredfast’s product suite includes applications for monitoring social media accounts and using the interactions happening there for marketing purposes. One is to add more options for customer service requests or inquiries originating from social channels such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter rather than via email, web forums, or traditional contact centers, said Spredfast CEO Rod Favaron....Spredfast is also investing more deeply in partnerships with companies that offer complementary tools, such as social analytics. Its suite already works with at least 50 other tools within this category such as the (named companies) finishing with company quotes, financials, named business partners, clients and investors. That exactly fits the meaning of business announcement. Given everything else available is similar, that can only mean the company itself authored it. SwisterTwister   talk  03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. Content is strictly advertorial so WP:PROMO applies. No indications of notability or significance. For example, Fortune coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as it discusses company funding and aspirations, strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry:
 * "Spredfast, which sells software for managing social media activities, disclosed a $50 million growth equity financing round on Wednesday, led by new investor Riverwood Capital. The infusion, which brings the company’s total funding to $116 million, will be used (among other things) to invest in engineering." Etc.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:INTEXT, "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation)". The text in the block quotation is copied from .  Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the current article, and work for Spredfast. I don't think I'm supposed to cast a vote here, and I'm not looking for Wikipedia to do anything outside its policies / content standards; but here are a few points for consideration: -Bthoma (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the previous article. I've now found a copy of it; the nine references I used were all new ones, the 11 in the previous article were all different, and I believe the ones I used are generally much higher quality by Wikipedia's standards. Do note that the Mass Relevance articles cited in the previous version were self-references as Mass Relevance is a company that merged with Spredfast. The name and business entity no longer exists—it was absorbed into Spredfast.
 * I also tried to keep this version short and factual, to avoid the possibility of it reading like an advertisement. Our interest is in having a clear, factual record of the company on Wikipedia, not to push a certain version of our history or importance.
 * I don't fully understand the discussion above. I believe Fortune is a well respected, major publication, and the reporter did not simply republish a press releases of ours, but did original reporting. How does the article fall short of Wikipedia's standards for sourcing? Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to understand that point better.
 * What should be done about Mass Relevance? I deleted the old version of the article to redirect here; the old version had been tagged as an advertisement since 2013, and had only 6 references, some self-references.
 * I think "salt" means the article can't be recreated - yes? For whatever it's worth, we have no intention to disregard the decision here, we respect Wikipedia's process.

Here are some further references, mostly academic journal articles, that may inform the case for notability. I have not been able to find all of these in open access online sources, but have linked some; others may be available online as well. -Bthoma (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Spredfast was used as a key tool for this social media research; the paper describes use of Spredfast in context of using similar tools: Shoutlet sold to Spredfast; discusses sizes of both companies, logistics of merger, etc: Abstract: "The article reports that New York Road Runners (NYRR), a nonprofit organization, has partnered with social media consultant Spredfast Spredfast to allow the participants at the 2015 New York City (NYC) Marathon to build their own social media videos that show their experience in the event." Spredfast won an Emmy Award: Spredfast mentioned (analysis, functions of software) in a number of New York Times articles, see this search result: https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Spredfast%22/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/

"Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) has recently developed a comprehensive way to measure millions of pieces of social content per minute..." Also quotes "experts from ... Mass Relevance (now Spredfast)" as saying: "Mass Relevance (now Spredfast) was Twitter's first social TV partnerand one of the first companies to combine social media with traditional TV programming..." "Cross Publishing, Tracking and Analysis of Content Streams in Social Media: These tools are very successful and widely used for public relations, social media, and (viral) marketing as well as policy campaigns (in the successful campaign of Barack Obama), in particular in the U.S. market. The following subsections will present the most common used tools in this application area." ... "Spredfast is an application developed for enterprises to follow their brand on the Web and manage promotion campaigns for new products ..." (From a 2012 conference paper) Spredfast was named a Leader in “The Forrester Wave: Social Relationship Platforms, Q2 2015” report by Forrester Research, Inc. Spredfast Spredfast was among 11 of the “most significant software providers,” according to Forrester Research Inc, to be included in the study. The SRPs were evaluated on 41 criteria, including their current offerings, strategy and market presence. Mentioned in industry press:

Adweek article (one small example of Spredfast's data being used in expert analysis): One of 12 social network management systems reviewed in this peer reviewed journal article:
 * The first source is a clear company press release in a local trade publication which violates both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, and the following sources are clear company announcements and funding columns, which also we explicitly violates said WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT; MarTechToday, as it is, is a clear trade publication as their own website page says, "a business tech blog for tech businesses" (hence immediately unacceptable). The AdWeek itself is a clear business announcement focusing with company plans. Something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied here as it's explicitly clear what we accept as substantial sources and significance; next, all listed sources show clear consistency in the same PR tone for all focused company specifics, showing immediately it's not independent. As it is, the 1 Emmy award is simply for technology company and is apparently a leniently given award for any tech company, hence unsuitable here. Also, the sources supposedly offered as "significant" are in fact clear-labeled PR. To make matters worse, the company itself has announced above it's involved and has motivated this PR article, hence it violates our policies alone as we are not a business webhost.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first source is a clear company press release in a local trade publication which violates both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, and the following sources are clear company announcements and funding columns, which also we explicitly violates said WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT; MarTechToday, as it is, is a clear trade publication as their own website page says, "a business tech blog for tech businesses" (hence immediately unacceptable). The AdWeek itself is a clear business announcement focusing with company plans. Something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied here as it's explicitly clear what we accept as substantial sources and significance; next, all listed sources show clear consistency in the same PR tone for all focused company specifics, showing immediately it's not independent. As it is, the 1 Emmy award is simply for technology company and is apparently a leniently given award for any tech company, hence unsuitable here. Also, the sources supposedly offered as "significant" are in fact clear-labeled PR. To make matters worse, the company itself has announced above it's involved and has motivated this PR article, hence it violates our policies alone as we are not a business webhost.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * According to a suggestion from User:Dream Focus, and in order to inform the decision around notability, I slightly expanded the article to include a few of the points and references mentioned above (the Emmy award, further info on the Forrester report) and I added citations, and adjusted the article text accordingly, around Spredfast's partnership program. As always, I hope that independent editors will review my work to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content standards - and also consider adding any of the other references / points I listed above. -Bthoma (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I read two articles from the Austin Business Journal and see that they are good journalism.  This is a reliable source, providing significant coverage.  I also read the Fortune article and see that it is also a reliable source providing significant coverage.  I found the article's use of language to be too cryptic for me to understand the nature of the company's product.  Specifically, "provides community management" told me nothing.  Nor did I understand the word "partnership".  I checked out Google scholar, which shows many hits.  I obtained the full pdf version of the research from Saudia Arabia in Elsevier's Procedia Computer,  and this explained that there is a class of software called SMMS, or Social Management Media Solution (or Social Media Management Systems), of which Spredfast is an example, and which further states, "Indeed, any enterprise needs a SMMS to manage their social media accounts well..."  If I read the review correctly, Spredfast does not release the number of clients and has unclear pricing.  Nonetheless, a scholarly work from Saudi Arabia satisfies WP:AUD.  Regarding WP:PROMO, I did not see any advertisements in the article, and since no advertisements have been identified, the objection is not actionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First, which policy instantly guarantees any company an immediate article? Because we as an encyclopedia have never served company's own needs and merits as it's not encyclopedia-suitable, thus there's no policy-backed basis. AUD is not policy and there's enough showing the past deletions for advertising and policy concerns overwhelmingly outweighs any few signs of supposed notability. In fact, "number of customers and pricing" would also violate both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT. So what and why would it ever convince us to go against our essential policies? In itself, the past concerns still apply today because it shows existing policy violations. AustinBusinessJournal violates WP:CORPDEPTH because the latter explicitly states such sources are not reliable and it's obvious because the BusinessJournal themselves republish company press releases and will even state it repeatedly; WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly states we need significant coverage in independent sources, of which ABJ is not. In this alone, WP:NOT applies because the continuous history here shows there's been a blatant misuse. When we started WP, our first non-negotiable policy, which still exists now, was to establish what was unacceptable and this applies, because it shows there's no genuine chances. SwisterTwister   talk  21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors have the right to edit as per fundamental principle WP:5P3. Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If Austin Business Journal does not practice journalistic ethics including independence, do you have evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If WP:CORPDEPTH has "explicit" language, why is the language not cited? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any past deletions for advertising are unrelated to notability. Advertising is a content issue, and notability is not a content guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was or is a "non-negotiable policy", why is that policy not cited? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One article. Nothing else. Google turns up their Twitter, their LinkedIn, their facebook. Nothing's changed since the last deletion. Also, WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:WWIN. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some of the current sources in the article.  All are WP:RS, without evidence of being other than journalistically independent, containing at least some significant coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (as per our article, "The Austin American-Statesman is the major daily newspaper for Austin, the capital city of Texas.)
 * (blog is by staff writer)
 * (blog is by a staff writer)
 * (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (author was a staff writer for Third Door Media, the publisher of Marketing Technology Today)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , (1) You have above stated about Marketing Technology Today (martechtoday.com/) that "their own website page says, 'a business tech blog for tech businesses' ". You have not cited a reference, and with an internet search I cannot confirm your statement.  Please provide a reference.  (2) I asked you above to provide your evidence that Austin Business Journal does not practice journalistic ethics including independence.  Do you have a response?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The two items fro mAustin Business Journal  used here are mere announcements, so they don't go to proving notability no matter what the nature of the publication. But as for the nature of the publication, the most substantial nonsubscription article I could find is, what seems certainly like a real new story, but if you go all the way to the end, it turns out to be an advertisement for a credit card.     DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To also weigh in here, every single source was still either a published business announcement, or republished or then also highly shown signs of it. Take:
 * 1-2 exactly fit this
 * 3 is still trivial
 * 4-12 are all same, either from the company's local trade PR publication or one, in which it was for an out-of-state PR. That alone wouldn't satisfy our main standards and policies here, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, which state "Wikipedia is not a business webhost and simple listings, mentions, announcements, etc. will not establish notability and cannot be used for it". For example, the MarTech is a clearly labeled "Press release by company", instantly unacceptable. TechCrunch is the same case, and the Science journal is simply a mere study; that alone is not what satisfies our standards and policies which also note "One source is not notability". SwisterTwister   talk  01:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow discussion about sources mentioned in yesterday's comment by Unscintillating

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "Spredfast introduced its social media management system (SMMS)—a social CRM—in 2010. Designed primarily for enterprise companies, Spredfast relies on its comprehensive social CRM dashboard. Although Spredfast has not been around as long as some of its top competitors in the social CRM space, it is regarded as one of the first to aggregate social media engagement and campaign management across major social media channels and leading blog platforms. In addition to social media channel and campaign management, Spredfast integrates a robust social data analytics suite, as well as several solutions for social media project/team management."  The book notes: "Vendor Spotlight—Spredfast Governing your brand's social activity requires a great deal of organization across people, accounts and content, as well as the need to uphold your company brand standards. Spredfast, a social media management system provider, helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions between brands and their communities. ... Spredfast can also help you collaborate so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively. As shown in Figure 10.9, teams can highlight activity proactively to share with contributors for reference or assign activity reactively to entire teams based on response needs. This collaboration replaces long email threads with system notifications and workflow automation within Spredfast to provide visibility across the team of what's been assigned, what needs prioritized attention, and what actions have been taken with visible audit trails. ... Spredfast protects the security and safety of brands by equipping administrators with the power to manage accounts, passwords, and user roles from within the platform. Content contributors are given access to engage directly within Spredfast rather than have direct access to many passwords needed to access company social media accounts. For companies in regulated industries or those with additional security needs, Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality, Single Sign-On, and IP restrictions. Following are two Spredfast customers who user their tool for varying levels of governance: [The book discusses Spredfast customers Whole Food Markets and AARP.]" <li>The sources provided by .</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spredfast to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Comment and analysis - The first is clearly not a fully convincing source given it's a tech guide, and anything with one of the first to aggregate social media engagement and campaign management across major social media channels and leading blog platforms. In addition to social media channel and campaign management, Spredfast integrates a robust social data analytics suite, as well as several solutions for social media project/team management is simply PR placement. Next, the blatancy of the second is the clear company involvements, take Governing your brand's social activity requires a great deal of organization across people, accounts and content, as well as the need to uphold your company brand standards. Spredfast, a social media management system provider, helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions between brands and their communities....Spredfast can also help you collaborate so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively. As shown in Figure 10.9, teams can highlight activity proactively to share with contributors for reference or assign activity reactively to entire teams based on response needs. This collaboration replaces long email threads with system notifications and workflow automation within Spredfast to provide visibility across the team of what's been assigned, what needs prioritized attention, and what actions have been taken with visible audit trails. Spredfast protects the security and safety of brands by equipping administrators with the power to manage accounts, passwords, and user roles from within the platform. Content contributors are given access to engage directly within Spredfast rather than have direct access to many passwords needed to access company social media accounts. For companies in regulated industries or those with additional security needs, Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality, Single Sign-On, and IP restrictions. Following are Spread customers", that in fact violates WP:CORPPDEPTH which states "Mere announcements, mentions, notices....are not significant, independent or used in articles for notability". It's also no different when we apply WP:NOT which says "Wikipedia is not a business webhost for simple company information, campaigning or advertising", and that above fits it exactly. Anything with first person company-speak is not going to be by anyone else but the company because it's advertising-toned, take helps brands organize and orchestrate social media, specifically content, to facilitate the ideal interactions and Spredfast can help you....so that workflows and approvals help teams engage productively and Spredfast offers enhanced password management functionality; no journalist would ever use that because a journalist is there to report news, not advertise the company and that's also what WP:CORPDEPTH itself covers. Our policies also state even republished press releases or announcements are unacceptable because they're still not independent. Another concern that is still covered by policy is past advertising which is non-negotiable because advertising has always been against policy here. To quote WP:GNG, If a topic, May be presumed''. since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 15 February 2017 (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.