Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Why the page should be deleted Please excuse my lack of knowledge on how to use WP, it can be a bit overwhelming for a beginner. Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history. Search results for ZoomInfo https://www.google.com/search?q=zoominfo: - The business website - Wikipedia article - Misc business related entries (review sites, glassdoor, etc) - PR spam that made it into news Company does not seem to have done anything of note to warrant listing. I discovered the company because they seem to have become adept at google spamming, which im guessing is the same as most of their visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacticomed (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

are all valid ways to ping me. I've linked to the article describing how to ping people. It's often used to notify users if someone replies to them. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep Comment The company seem to be included in Semantic Web for Dummies. And it is mentioned in quite a few magazine articles.  It also have a US patent.  The company has won some kind of tech award as well.  Therefore, it could pass the notability guidelines. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Patents are not independent and do not count toward notability at all; they are a paradigmatic example of WP:SPS. The "award" is another SPS - a press release - and also doesn't count toward notability  at all. Please read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGCRIT. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiley doesn't seem like self published source. I read the author's blurb and he doesn't seem to have any connection with Zoominfo. Given I can't see the full book, I'm changing the keep to a comment. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiley didn't publish the patent or the press release. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No but the product is covered by Wiley. However, I can't see the full book so I can't judge whether it's a main topic or a passing mention. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Tyw7, I like your original viewpoint at start, at first glance company seems to be ok to include, I only dug because of how I found the company. After digging into the sources listed for inclusion Ive found it to be PR generated, not organic, for the most part. The awards are mostly of no worth besides for PR firms. Pls see my comment below for Pavlor as well. " Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect." Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)" I do not know if this will ping? (what is this, i only know it as a network echo) you? Does it if i copy paste style of comment? Tacticomed (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Covered by these books:
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=01KdGqBe4WQC&pg=PA174&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja_9vQpPPcAhVDT8AKHdqpCM0Q6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=%22ZoomInfo%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kR1Qe4e1PEsC&pg=PA107&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja_9vQpPPcAhVDT8AKHdqpCM0Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=%22ZoomInfo%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1opEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2upXvpPPcAhVhJ8AKHe4PDHE4ChDoAQgoMAA
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRadJIuhVjAC&q=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4hISDpfPcAhXKLsAKHd8CBC44FBDoAQhGMAU##

But taking a closer look, many of them seem to be passing mentions. None of the books are fully online though. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment What about the sources mentioned in the previous AfD? Pavlor (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect. Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and, what are your thoughts about the sources provided below? Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm unsure what to vote, but maybe a Merge or Redirect to LinkedIn (company owner) could work? <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict</b><b style="color:#339900">6</b><b style="color:#3399FF">9</b> 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * LinkedIn does not own ZoomInfo, which is owned by Great Hill Partners, a private equity firm. The confusion might have stemmed from misreading the article's infobox which says "Subsidiaries: Bizo (sold to LinkedIn in 2014)". Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 17 August 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.
 * Delete Appears to fail WP:NCORP. While there are some sources that go toward substantive information, notably the VentureBeat article, there is not much information about the company (more about the type of service that ZoomInfo provides, and even then, the sources are not necessarily independent or reliable). --Enos733 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 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, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage appears to be PR driven, fails ORGIND. Can't find any coverage on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The book notes: "ZoomInfo (zoominfo.com) What Is It? Zoom Info is a vertical search engine focused on people, companies, and the relationships between them. The site is composed of jobseekers, companies seeking to hire, and businesses looking to sell and market to other businesses. ZoomInfo offers three main searches: People, Companies, and Jobs. They also offer three main services for Recruiting, Sales/Marketing Prospects, and Corporate Research.  Site Stats  Born: Founded as Eliyon Technologies in 2000 Users: More than 37 million summaries of business profesionals and 3 million company profiles, with nearly 6.5 million unique monthly users. ...  Highs what the site is good at and for …  Simplifying the process of finding people by crawling the web, doing a semantic analysis of web pages, and extracting information to add to its profile database. Building a business by representing yourself or your company, or by creating a company profile. Accessing company information including a general description, annual revenue, and number of employees. Creating your own identity to increase your online exposure. Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site … ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services." The book also discusses how ZoomInfo serves recruiters with ZoomInfo PowerSearch and how Power Search offers People Search, Company Search, Contact Information, Workflow Management, and E-mail Campaigns. It discusses how ZoomInfo can be used by "sales pros" and corporate research.</li> <li> The book notes: "ZoomInfo ZoomInfo is a people-finder and business information search engine with information on more than 45 million people and 5 million companies. ZoomInfo's semantic search engine continually crawls the Web, scouring millions of targeted company Web sites, news feeds, and other online sources to identify information on people, companies, products, services, and industries, as shown in Figure 15-5. ZoomInfo organizes this discovered information into easy-to-read profiles that can be queried by anybody. ZoomInfo technology represents one of the most sophisticated, automatic content-generation systems and has already secured five patents with two more patents pending. The ZoomInfo data is extracted and compiled for NLP, AI algorithms, and data integration programs. The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents. With these algorithms, ZoomInfo analyzes the type and content of a Web site based on how it's constructed. ZoomInfo is able to deduce that a apecific paragraph is a company description or that a specific address contains the location of a company's headquarters in order to extract the most accurate and relevant information." The book further notes that the company's headquarters is in "Waltham, MA, USA" and that the funding was "$7,000,000+ (privately held)".</li> <li> The book notes: "When I first heard about Zoominfo, an online aggregator of information about people, I immediately went there and found myself. It showed my current professorial position, and even reminded me of some old projects that I had completley forgotten about. However, it also named me as a director of a Virginia-based Aerospace company and said that I taught at Bard College. Neither of these claims were true, so I claimed the profile in 2008 and corrected it. I decided it would be fund to see what information they had back then on the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen J. Harper. I was astounded to see him listed with the title 'Campaign Director.' Campaign Director is a long way from Prime Minister of Canada. Zoominfo was using old information, and Harper had not yet 'claimed' his profile, which you do by providing Zoominfo with a credit card that matches your profile name. They do not charge the card, at least for their basic service, but they do use it for identity confirmation. I mentioned Harper's profile in some Canadian government circles and soon his profile was claimed and updated. Another under Mr. Harper's 'Employment History' reveals how Zoominfo 'thinks.' Some news reporter, or blogger, apparently wrote about 'Stephen Hardper, the somewhat reluctant leader of the Conservative' party and the site's 'patented' technology dutifully used that as his official title. It gets even worse. I logged on once and found him listed as the 'Odious Leader of the Conservative Party.'"</li> <li> The article notes: "By promising to sift through the avalanche of information on the World Wide Web, ZoomInfo is hoping it has found a market niche as a data mine for those who want reliable information about specific companies and the executives behind them. Since it was launched in 2000 the Waltham, Mass.-based company boasts the largest index of corporate executives, with over 27 million people already with a profile, with 500,000 new people added to the database every month. In addition, the company updates 4.5 million profiles per month, with about 85 percent of all people listed based in the United States. ... Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers. 'It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick,' said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams."</li> <li> The article notes: "ZoomInfo's computers have compiled individual Web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the Web publicly says about each person. The service, launched Monday, allows Web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free. ... ZoomInfo, formerly Eliyon Technologies, is a privately held company with about 60 employees. An existing pay service helps businesses and recruiters use the Internet to find and screen new employees at costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, depending the size of the company and usage. The company said its customers include 20 percent of the Fortune 500, including Google Inc., America Online and Microsoft Corp. ... Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo. ... Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said."</li> <li> The article notes: "ZoomInfo is also an impressive service – it claims to be the premier business information search engine, with profiles on more than 37m people and 3.5m companies. Irrespective of whether someone has an account, it creates people profiles by assembling them from fragments of information gleaned from websites. But like most dedicated people search services, which often start building profiles with information from company databases and similar sources, ZoomInfo encourages users to create their own profile that they control and update. When someone else searches for you using ZoomInfo they will see this profile together with “web references” that the service has collected and collated. Inevitably, if – like me – you have a common name, some of these references will be to people who share it."</li> <li> The article notes: "A Massachusetts startup is offering a service it says gives a measure of control over the personal data the internet disgorges, giving new meaning to a practice commonly termed 'ego surfing' or 'Googling yourself,' the practice of typing your name into an internet search engine and seeing what pops up. Zoom Information's computers have compiled individual web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the web publicly says about each person. The company's ZoomInfo service allows web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free. ZoomInfo can't erase information on the internet, or stop people searches on the web from turning up incorrect or unflattering data. But since search engines display the most relevant results first, a well-constructed ZoomInfo profile would theoretically be the first or among the first choices that appear in search results."</li> <li> The article notes: "ZoomInfo, the people search engine that gets its data from gathering biographical information on just about everyone, whether you know about it or not, is launching an advertising network. And in going along with the current trend of tempting fate when it comes to controversial activity with web surfer's cookies, ZoomInfo will be offering up these cookies to companies looking to provide more targeted ads. There are a couple of things to consider here: you'll need to first visit ZoomInfo in order for it to have your cookie. Additionally, you'll have to have a general presence on the web, whether this be for social networking, your own website, or any type of e-commerce activity. So when you purchase an item from a company's website, it could then work with ZoomInfo to compare 'cookie notes' in order to provide more targeted ads to you, online, via email, and the next time you visit the company's website."</li> <li> The article notes: "I must admit, ZoomInfo concerns me slightly. Sure, it only aggregates public information, but the problem here is twofold. First, it's hard for people with evil intentions to gather up that data using conventional methods. (Although you could say Google already provides a lot of this functionality, and you'd be right - but even Googling someone takes a bit of effort.) Second, the information is often wrong - this is especially true in the cases where ZoomInfo muddles up two people with the same (or similar) names. So I think ZoomInfo should be viewed in the same light as Wikipedia - it's an interesting portal to information, but the accuracy of that information isn't guaranteed. Let's hope your future employer heeds that warning."</li> <li> The article notes: "ZoomInfo, a people-search engine focused on the business world, is a relative industry veteran, founded in 2001. ... ZoomInfo is an anomaly in that it charges subscriptions for a souped-up version of its service that is aimed at recruiters and marketers. ... For now, traffic to people-search engines is relatively light. ZoomInfo reported 895,000 unique U.S. users in July, while Wink had 90,000, according to comScore Media Metrix."</li> <li> The article notes: "Zoom Information Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts, said it will offer free access to in-depth information on millions of U.S. companies, tens of millions of people and job listings. The company’s system, which crawls the open Web to locate details of individual people and then constructs profiles using artificial intelligence techniques, gives job recruiters and other business users an alternative to proprietary databases. ... The company, which was founded in 2000, has so far made most of its money from paid services it provides to 1,600 corporate clients, including Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp., PepsiCo and a fifth of the Fortune 500."</li> <li> The article notes: "I've just spent an enjoyable afternoon looking up personal information on friends and family on a new Web site called ZoomInfo.com. It's ironic. This winter, identity-theft scandals rocked ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, firms that collect and publish information on private individuals. But today, a five-year-old Cambridge, Mass., startup called Eliyon Technologies will roll out a new Web site that ... collects and publishes information on private individuals. ... Today, Eliyon will make a basic version of the site available to the masses, for free, at ZoomInfo.com. CEO Jonathan Stern described how the technology works. Like other search engines, the company's automated software robots catalog the Web, page by page. But instead of indexing various words and subjects, then ranking each page by popularity or importance, Eliyon looks only for names and occupations."</li> <li>Articles about Great Hill Partners' acquisition of ZoomInfo in 2017:<ol> <li> The article notes: "ZoomInfo, the subscription-based B2B platform that sells access to company data such as contact details, employment history, and other background information, was acquired earlier this week by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners. But the company didn’t reveal how much it was acquired for — until now. A ZoomInfo spokesperson has confirmed to VentureBeat that it was acquired for $240 million, and it said that it will continue to operate as is, except under the wing of its new owners. ... Founded in 2000, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Zoominfo specializes in helping sales personnel identify and target qualified contacts through organizing and validating data. The platform also features user-contributed updates, while it crawls the web to extract mentions and details of companies and individuals in the news."</li> <li> The article notes: "Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners has acquired business-to-business contact information provider ZoomInfo for $240 million, the company confirmed to Law360 on Friday. Zoom Information Inc., headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, announced the acquisition on Monday without disclosing the price. A representative for the company told Law360 on Friday that Great Hill had become the majority owner in the $240 million transaction, and that the move was intended to cash out early ZoomInfo investors, some of whom had been involved with CardScan Inc., the company it..."</li> <li> The article notes: "Zoom Information, Inc. (Zoominfo), a provider of B2B data, including email addresses, has been acquired by Great Hill Partners, a private equity company specializing in high-growth, mid-market companies. The terms were not disclosed."</li> <li> The article notes: "Business contact database provider Zoom Information Inc.of Waltham has been acquired by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners for $240 million in cash. ZoomInfo chief executive Yonatan Stern said he decided to sell the privately-held company, better known as ZoomInfo, because “it’s time for me to move on. . . . I’m not going to retire, but I want to move the center of my life to Israel,” where Stern has lived there since 2004. ZoomInfo employs about 200 people, most of them in Waltham. The company has a database containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 200 million business people worldwide, including 80 million in the United States. Companies use the ZoomInfo database to precisely target their sales and marketing efforts."</li> </ol></li> <li> The article notes: "Another tool for checking what there is out there is ZoomInfo, which is an aggregator that seeks information about people and collects it all in one place. You can search for your own name at ZoomInfo and create a profile about yourself linking it to the information that ZoomInfo finds about you. At www.ZoomInfo.com, click the People Search tab type your name and click Search. When the results appear, click your name to read what the program found. If any of this information relates to you, click the This Is Me link when that item is open and you can complete your profile if you first register on the site. If ZoomInfo finds multiple items relating to you, you can link them all together in your profile by selecting those that are you and click the This Is Me link. Click Accept to add the entry to your profile. It's a good idea to create a ZoomInfo ID as a central resource for information about you. It will be available to anyone looking for you on the web."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ZoomInfo to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>

<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. Relisting comment: Third relist per the multitude of sources presented late in the discussion.
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: and . Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Hi, I reviewed some of your links.
 * 1) 1) Highly out of date and incorrect information, they get most everything the company offers wrong, see https://www.zoominfo.com/business/pricing for what they actually offer.
 * 2) 2) Unsubstantiated claims read from a PR firm press release, note no footnotes. The company is basically a data broker / warehouse, I know it doesn't sound as fancy but its the simple truth. They sell wholesale access to peoples personal data, and have recently started posting some information publicly to gin up their search rating, possibility testing selling on a consumer level.
 * 3) 3) A person used it and wrote about it in a book about privacy, feels like passing mention. If a book mentions a person buying a soda on his way to work should it be the basis for a listing of the corner deli that sells soda?
 * 4) 4) Actually pretty on point. Its a data warehousing company, and those are a dime a dozen these days. Why is this notable?
 * 5) 5) Article on them changing their marketing strat and publicly listed some of their database to gin up their site standing and indexing, this is why I found them, SEO is not noteworthy.
 * 6) 6) Legit, states generally what the company is and does.
 * 7) 7) See corner deli example earlier.
 * 8) 8) Legit article.
 * 9) 9) Legit article.
 * 10) 10) Legit article, a bit fluffy though.
 * 11) 11) PR spam that made it past Reuters editors.
 * 12) 12) Legit article, if a bit cheesy.
 * 13) 13) Business acquisition, part of a company history but not useful for notability.
 * 14) 14) Legit article.

Overall its mostly random tidbits or passing mentions if not outright gibberish and buzzzwords, again what has this company done that is notable? Can I list my corner deli as well? It feels like the entry belongs in a business index, not an encyclopedia. What has this company done that is notable? Have they made a major advancement in technology? Were they used in a pivotal historical event in a meaningful way? No.

(i include these as you pinged them in your original post, if this is wrong please let me know and I will not do so in the future. Pinging Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: and.

Tacticomed (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting that five of the sources I provided are in your view "legit article[s]". Five legitimate sources means the company passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NTEMP. Sufficient sources over the years to support notability, and any remaining concerns about promotionalism in the text can be handled by the usual editing processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that many of the Keep !voters above are unaware that the criteria for sources used for the purposes of establishing notability of companies/organizations is much stricter that sources used to establish the notability of other topics. One of the key parts of WP:ORGIND is "Intellectual Independence".
 * "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. "
 * So, "sufficient sources" is not a reason to Keep - this is not about the volume of reliable sources, but about the quality of the sources. It has also been pointed out previously at other AfDs that Cunard simply ignores the requirement for Intellectual Independence and often hides parts of the selected extracts that clearly points to the information coming from the company website or an interview or a company announcement. For example, this upi reference is based on an interview with the CEO and there is nothing that can be identified as being clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, this Wired reference or this mediapost reference.
 * While the closer doesn't exercise a "supervote", the closer should be able to see which policies/guidelines are being ignored by Keep !voters and come to a conclusion based on the arguements put forward. I suggest that Keep !voters post specific links to references that they believe are intellectually independent and otherwise meet the criteria for establishing notability below here. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The three book sources I have further discussed below are not based on interviews. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as I don't see WP:CORP met here: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (Emphasis mine.) The significance is what is lacking, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of (non-PR) content that goes much beyond "this is a company that exists." --Chris (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the sourcing is routine and / or WP:SPIP. Just a company going about its business; this is insufficient for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are three strong book sources about the subject:<ol><li> This book covers ZoomInfo on pages 119–125. That is seven pages of coverage about ZoomInfo in a book. It extensively discusses the company and its products and even includes negative coverage like "Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site …: ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services."</li><li> The book covers ZoomInfo on pages 350–351. It provides detailed analysis about how the company's product works. It notes: "The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents."</li><li> In a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy, author Thomas P. Keenan devotes six paragraphs of coverage about his experience using ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo had incorrect information about both himself and the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. He notes that people's personal information, including his own is "accumulated automatically and shared without your consent and knowledge" by ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo can be used to "play an interesting game of 'find my doppelgänger'". </li></ol> A PR piece would not say "ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results". A PR agent would not want ZoomInfo to be criticized as inaccurate in a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. The previous two "delete" participants said that "the significance is what is lacking" and "the sourcing is routine". I do not consider seven pages of coverage in a book to be non-significant or routine. Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." These books provide an overview, description, commentary, analysis, and discussion of the company, so ZoomInfo passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Other available sources provide negative coverage of the subject:<ol><li> The article notes: "Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers. "It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick," said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams.</li><li> The article notes: "Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo. … Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said." The article also quotes from author Preston Gralla who says "Just the act of collecting all this information, you could consider it an invasion of privacy."</li></ol> PR pieces would not include very negative coverage about ZoomInfo from experts calling it "a one-trick pony" or saying the service "seems like snooping", is an "invasion of privacy", and "could result in more inaccuracies" on the Internet.</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Cunard, the problem is that you post 10, 15, 20 links to various references with selected quotes from each (selected, in that you often omit the pieces that show the information originates from an interview or connected source and this is deliberately deceptive), taking up pages and pages. Despite you having been told multiple times about this type of posting, you continue to do so. Not only that, but most of the references you post simply ignore the criteria for establishing notability contained in NCORP, especially the requirement for intellectually independence. Either you don't understand WP:ORGIND or you are intentionally ignoring it. Either way, posting as you do is both off-putting and disruptive. For example, you posted this reference previously and again just now. The article relies extensively on an interview from a company source. You've extracted one quote from David Card and I'll ask you simply, since that is the only intellectually independent part of the article you've identified, how exactly does this quote help to establish notability and just exactly what part of that quote meets WP:CORPDEPTH for example? Similarly, you've extracted a single quote from the CBS News, same thing applies. Similarly with the book references. The "Get Connected" reference is self-published from Entrepreneur Press and fails as a WP:RS. The "Semantic Web for Dummies" is a listing among other company listings and I would accept this as a weak reference but not enough on its own to establish notability. The third book reference "Technocreep" is a mention in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Entrepreneur Press book that provides seven pages of coverage about the subject is not self-published. Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business was written by Starr Hall and Chadd Rosenberg. From the book's copyright page: "Publisher: Jere L. Calmes Cover Design: Del LeMond Production and Editorial Services: CWL Publishing Enterprises, Inc., Madison, WI, www.cwlpub.com Copyright @ 2009 by Entrepreneur Press. All rights reserved. … Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Business Products Division, Entrepreneur Media Inc." There is more information about Entrepreneur Press at http://entrepreneurmedia.com/books/, which says, "Part of the Entrepreneur Media family, Entrepreneur Press® has published quality print, digital, and audio books for more than 40 years." The publisher is selective; from the website about book proposals: "Only those proposals that include all of the information defined below will be considered. Due to the high volume of submissions, we do not guarantee a response or take any responsibility for the materials received (by mail or electronically)." Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the United Press International article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. That does not make the entire article based on interviews. The journalist attributed the information that was from the company's employees, did fact checking, and did independent research for the rest of the article. The journalist also interviewed David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research. The article also said "ZoomInfo is weak in listing executives in countries where English is not the main language", which likely is not based on interviews with the company. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the CBS News article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. But the journalist also included quotes from four people not affiliated with the company:<ol><li>CBS News Technology Analyst Larry Magid</li><li>Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert</li><li>Preston Gralla, co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Internet Privacy and Security</li><li>Chris Sherman, editor of the industry newsletter Search Day</li></ol> The quotes from people non-affiliated with ZoomInfo fulfills Notability (organizations and companies), which says: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very (weakest possible) weak keep Sources certainly aren´t impressive and looking at the article history, I feel there is a SPA push for company promotion (eg. removing negative content here: - well, used source probably was not RS, so removal could have been legitime; suspicious anyway). However, there is enough sources to write a balanced article (as demonstrated by Cunard above) about this company, whose notability is (even by my quite low standards) borderline. Note I agree with analysis provided by HighKing just above my post, but my understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH is more permissive. Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you elaborate on where you believe we differ on CORPDEPTH? Which piece do you believe scrapes over your understanding? Thank you. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging as HighKing's ping was broken. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is simple: for me, few paragraphs of intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources are enough, I don´t need entire books about the article subject to pass my notability requirements. I know this is a minority viewpoint and not well suited for corporate articles, where blatant promotion by SPA/UPE is the norm and where lenient "fools" like myself only help these SPA/UPE to pollute Wikipedia with their corpspam. That is why I rarely participate in corporations related AfDs and rather stay in the field I like far more: old computers and computer history. I will put it bluntly, even years old minor Amiga application has far better coverage in reliable sources than ZoomInfo (eg. DOpus - whose Wikipedia article is also bad and probably SPA edited, but there are dozens of multiple-page reviews and tutorials from the 90s about it). As I commented early in this AfD and was prompted later to state my opinion, I did so. Pavlor (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the sources, Pavlor. I appreciate it. I agree that old computers and computer history would be a more pleasant environment to work in compared to corporations. Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: A quick research on Zoominfo shows that it has received a considerable amount of coverage over the last few years as seen on Google news, and is a leader (in worldwide terms) in the field of "B2B account and contact database" (with a website ranked at around 700 in the US, according to Alexa), therefore making it notable enough for Wikipedia. Yambaram (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * include links to your findings from your research, note I'm not disputing your statements i simply got different results when searching for information on the company. Tacticomed (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep there are enough intellectually independent sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH particularly the later book sources and the critical pieces are certainly independent and cannot be considered pr in the least, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 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.