Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amplitude (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Amplitude (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON non notable company that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search shows only this good source, which isn’t enough to show WP:SIRS met, as there isn’t significant coverage, one good source for isn’t enough, asides that we have nothing but a plethora of press releases & mere announcements. WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. The sources used in the article itself corroborates a before as it is just a collection of user generated sources, sponsored posts and press releases. Furthermore when determining notability we are reminded that numericals aren’t a factor to be considered. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree about the company's notability, though the first version of the page was somewhat unclear. I have made several additional edits to the page to reflect the broader and deeper public discussion about the company. Specifically the company's choice of a direct listing discussed in the source you noted here as well as here, here, and here; as well as the company's choice of an early IPO discussed here. Please let me know if there is something else I'm failing to understand. --Jjersin (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- To add, there are a number of in depth third party sources discussing this company and its products. A small sample of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, --Jjersin (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Per the guidelines, which Celestina007 linked to, publicly traded companies almost always meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I all high quality sources do not need to be reflected as references in the article, but many good sources do in fact exist as is typical in these cases. --Jjersin (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment — The first source is a self published source, the second has no editorial oversight, the third has no reputation for fact checking. I could analyze all of them if you want me to but they all are unreliable sources. See WP:RS. Furthermore WP:REFBOMBING isn’t going to demonstrate notability, lastly WP:NCORP remains the criteria to meet if an organization is considered notable or not. Once more I want to note that WP:TOOSOON is major factor here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment — Below are the 7 new sources brought forward & as we can observe they do not substantiate nor prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://rubenugarte.com/definitive-guide-amplitude-analytics/ |  A self published source which is dependent on the organization
|
No editorial oversight
|
No significant discussion.
|
✘ No |
| https://hevodata.com/learn/amplitude-data-analytics/ | ? A non reliable source. | No evidence of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking
|
Once more nothing in-depth is said here.
|
✘ No |
| https://hevodata.com/learn/amplitude-data-analytics/ | Depends on the organization and reads like a sponsored post
|
No editorial oversight
|
Nothing tangible is discussed, basically reads like sponsored material
|
✘ No |
| https://marketlytics.com/blog/amplitude-properties-for-web-apps/ | Dependent on organization
|
This piece expressly & literally calls it itself a blog
|
Nothing is significantly discussed.
|
✘ No |
| https://userflow.com/docs/integrations/amplitude | ? This isn’t a source | Appears anyone can sign in & contribute
|
? In itself This isn’t even a source | ✘ No |
| https://docs.developers.optimizely.com/full-stack/docs/set-up-amplitude | ? This isn’t a source | This isn’t a source
|
This isn’t a source
|
✘ No |
| https://www.appcues.com/blog/user-onboarding-funnel-amplitude | This is a blog source which may not be independent of the organization
|
This is a blog source
|
Once again this blog source doesn’t discuss anything with significant coverage
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Comment — Above are the 7 new sources brought forward & as we can observe they do not substantiate nor prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Response
- — I'm not trying to "refbomb"; I only noted that the 7 sources in my second comment were in depth. I shared them because you explicitly stated that WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. However, I believe those responses disprove that assertion, -- in the WP:ORGDEPTH page which you linked to yourself, the section "Examples of substantial coverage" includes "An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product", which accurately describes those 7 sources and many others.
- — More importantly, the 5 sources from my first response were not included in your source assessment table. As I stated, I believe they all meet the WP:GNG requirements.
- — There are plenty more sources about this company, but after reading every "WP:" page you've linked to, I cannot understand how I haven't already proven that the page meets notability guidelines. I have listed 5 sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which appear to be clearly independent, reliable, and containing significant coverage, and 7 more sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) which appear clearly independent of the organization and in depth. If you still believe this article does not meet WP:GNG, please review these 12 sources for those specific attributes. --Jjersin (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Response - I still haven't gotten any response to my very first comment so I created another "Source Assessment Table" for the sources you missed plus a few others I found. I believe this is a notable company, and I'm confident I can find even more high quality sources than this.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/analytics-firm-amplitude-valued-5-bln-shares-jump-nasdaq-debut-2021-09-28/ |  Reuters is a independent of Amplitude
|
Reuters is well known news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/product-analytics-firm-amplitudes-stock-jumps-on-debut-i-hope-the-traditional-ipo-goes-away-says-ceo/ | ZDNet is a independent of Amplitude
|
ZDNet is well known news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/28/amplitude-starts-trading-on-nasdaq-in-direct-listing.html | CNBC is a independent of Amplitude
|
CNBC is well known news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-28/analytics-firm-amplitude-rises-in-direct-listing-trading-debut | Bloomberg is independent of Amplitude
|
Bloomberg is a well known news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2021/07/14/fast-growing-analytics-startup-amplitude-founded-by-forbes-30-under-30-alums-files-to-go-public/?sh=726ae17e2b7f | Forbes is independent of Amplitude
|
Forbes is a well known news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.barrons.com/articles/amplitude-direct-listing-stock-ampl-51632849815 | Barrons is a independent of Amplitude
|
Barrons is well known financial news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/01/why-amplitude-went-public-through-a-direct-listing/ | Motley fool is independent of Amplitude
|
Motley fool is a well know investment news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amplitude-stock-surges-in-software-companys-public-debut-as-a-direct-listing-traditional-ipos-are-antiquated-says-ceo-11632846978 | MarketWatch is independent of Amplitude
|
MarketWatch is a well know investment news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://fortune.com/2021/09/28/amplitude-ceo-on-why-he-is-taking-the-company-public-now/ | Fortune is independent of Amplitude
|
Fortune is a well known business news company
|
article is entirely about Amplitude
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.economist.com/business/going-public-here-is-a-how-to-guide/21805069 | The Economist is independent of Amplitude
|
The Economist is a well known news company
|
article uses Amplitude as 1 of only 2 examples
|
✔ Yes |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
--Jjersin ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- added another source (Forbes). Also I don't know if this matters, but I found two existing articles that mention Amplitude and a third that cites Amplitude. I added another where it made sense. existing mention 1 existing mention 2 mention 3 citation from Amplitude --Jjersin (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Multiple reliable sources independent of the topic have been presented that show significant coverage, and the article therefore appears to meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Two comments. (1.) I'd like to see a revised source assessment table done by an independent editor such as Celestina007, rather than by the creator of the draft. I can't do one myself because of paywalls, but I see that Jjersin has rated this one as "independent" although it is based on statements by the subject's CEO. (2.) The first sentence of draft states that the company is "focused on analytics products", and gives the names of three such products. But it nowhere explains what they do. This leaves the impression that it does the same kind of stuff that Cambridge Analytica notoriously did. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Maproom:, I didn't think of someone getting that impression, but added a small section about the company's products to address your concern. --Jjersin (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Maproom: I've commented a source assessment table evaluating the additional sources below. ––FormalDude talk 08:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Source assessment table by User:FormalDude:
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/28/amplitude-starts-trading-on-nasdaq-in-direct-listing.html | Passes WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated and the content is not sponsored.
|
CNBC is generally reliable.
|
Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-28/analytics-firm-amplitude-rises-in-direct-listing-trading-debut | Passes WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated and the content is not sponsored.
|
Blooomberg is generally reliable.
|
Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/01/why-amplitude-went-public-through-a-direct-listing/ | Does not pass WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated but the content appears sponsored and is largely connected to a primary source.
|
? No consensus on the reliability of The Motley Fool. | Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amplitude-stock-surges-in-software-companys-public-debut-as-a-direct-listing-traditional-ipos-are-antiquated-says-ceo-11632846978 | Does not pass WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated but the content appears sponsored and is largely connected to a primary source.
|
? No known consensus on the reliability of MarketWatch. | Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✘ No |
| https://fortune.com/2021/09/28/amplitude-ceo-on-why-he-is-taking-the-company-public-now/ | Meets WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated and the content is not sponsored. There is a quote from the CEO but that is not what the article is primarily about.
|
No reason to see Fortune as unreliable-appears to have editorial standards.
|
Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2021/07/14/fast-growing-analytics-startup-amplitude-founded-by-forbes-30-under-30-alums-files-to-go-public/?sh=5d3a56bb2b7f | Meets WP:ORGIND as the author in unrelated and the content is not sponsored.
|
Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.
|
Significant discussion about the topic.
|
✔ Yes |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources has been identified. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Formally recording my vote. Per comments from Cullen and FormalDude, as well as source assessment table from FormalDude (and also mine) there are multiple sources which are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. -- Jjersin (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - It has significant coverage from reliable sources such as CNBC, Article written by Forbes Staff, San Francisco Business Times, The Economist, Reuters, and more. It meets WP:NCORP guidelines. It has improvement opportunities. Deletion won't be the right choice for it Mommmyy (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and revise drastically. This is an unusual case: We normally do not consider that references only about funding offer significant coverage. This seems to be an exception, because the funding itself is what the company seems to be notable for. Highly promotional by the usual standards: . an emphasis throughout on what the founder chose to say he "believed" " ; overuse of company name; unsourced adjective of excellence throughout ; repeated use of company and product name. These must be fixed, but it seems possible. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 22 October 2021 (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.