Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contentsquare

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. The consensus is that insufficient sourcing that is not dependent on press releases and the like exists.. Deor (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentsquare

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is routine. scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. Slywriter (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple indepth reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability.Fabiobengario (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Wall Street Journal, VentureBeat and Forbes are all well-known, reliable sources. If you do a WP:BEFORE, there's even more coverage in the WSJ, as well as minor coverage about the impact of the company on society. This source mentions how the company was one of the tech unicorns recognized by Macron as part of his efforts to increase the number of tech businesses in France. Reviewers can Google them as part of a proper source review. I don't like having to ref stuff and WP:OVERCITE, but will add more if that's what it takes to close this. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:THREE references provided above, can you point to any "Independent Content" (see definition at WP:ORGIND) in those articles, especially in light of how similar they are to lots of others? There's really no chance that "Independent Content" between different publications all have the same content, facts and information. Plus, with hardly any effort we can see that in addition to the three sources you've provided, the same story was propagated around the same date by Crunchbase, Calcalistech, in4capital, bleucap and lots of others, not to mention the announcement on the company's own blog? Is it your position that they all contain "Independent Content"? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references are either churnalism, brief mentions or regurgitated announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:ORGCRIT, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. The VentureBeat (2021) source is related to a company announcement and largely based on an email from the company founder, with multiple grafs quoting his claims, followed by grafs that include "Contentsquare says" and "It claims". This type of source does not appear to support notability per WP:ORGIND, which includes, If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Similar but briefer dependent coverage is available from Forbes (2021), e.g. "Contentsquare chief executive and founder Cherki said" and "says Yanni Pipilis, managing partner at the SoftBank Vision Fund" forms the core of the article. I cannot access more than the preview of the WSJ (2021) coverage of the same announcement, but a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage WP:ORGDEPTH. In my online search for better sources, I have found a lot of press releases and Linkedin profiles. Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more corp-spam with virtually no meaningful coverage - funding announcements are about as MILL as it gets. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current sourcing passes WP:NCORP. I just added the two others Technotalk mentioned above mentioned above, including reports of notability in France. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One is funding news from press-release and the other one is a profile, with four lines of text, one of 26. That doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. The profile is primary and has no information in it. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The local.fr source has three sentences about the company: "This start-up has existed since 2012. It acts as a tool to allow website and app designers to monitor how their users behave while on their webpage/app. Contentsquare provides analytical information that can help to tailor websites to improve the digital experiences of users." The article is much more focused on Macron, the efforts of the government to promote start-ups, and its most recent promotion of a different company. Per WP:ORGDEPTH, inclusion in lists of similar organizations is an example of trivial coverage, and it also appears to be trivial because it is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It also appears to be uncritically-reported promotional content that is dependent on the French government, not an independent evaluation, survey, study, etc, by the article author. Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage added, from Luxury Daily, about a report the company issues that tracks billions of clicks on websites, and its impact. It's paywalled, but I can send you a PDF if you can't review it yourself. There's more than enough coverage for this to be a keep. @Praxidicae: What is spam? This is all independent coverage. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"What is spam" - a simple way to look that up would be google. But I think you're fully aware of what promo is. None of this is acceptable sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxury Daily article is marked "ARTICLE TOOLS SPONSOR", which is advertised as "Articles tool sponsor (88×31) on Web site: $2,000 per week" on the Luxury Daily About Us page, so it does not appear to be an acceptable source. Per WP:ADS, There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. There is additional information available on the guideline page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Praxidicae:, I should have been more clear. Of course I know what spam is, but I was asking if you could identify the spam sourcing in the article. I'm seeing a sudden big backlash from the community to my article creation, after having nothing deleted for 6 years, and want to make sure I comply with accepted sourcing guidelines, or it's all a waste of time. Nothing looks like spam or PR to me, so I was asking for your perspective. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Routine funding coverage which all suspiciously mirror a press release, paid advertisements, interviews, and the odd trivial mention do not contribute to the notability of a subject. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aoidh: Please link to a press release or a paid advertisement, as an example. That will help me understand which of these reliable sources should be banned on the reliable sources board so I don't keep using them. Rather than challenging them piecemeal in AfD after AfD, would it make more sense to try to build consensus to block them as reliable sources? That would seem to be more effective in the long term. I also don't get the aversion to interviews. I understand that a pure interview can be somewhat unreliable, but depending on the publication, it can be a sign of notability that the person was selected, right? Also, reporters base their coverage on interviews, but usually rewrite the info and compile info from different sources to do a fuller piece. When I have time I'll start a relevant discussion and ping you for your feedback. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your comment since this content was already discussed. The press release is mentioned in HighKing's comment above, the paid advertisement on Beccaynr's comment. The individual source for each isn't the problem, as any copy of a press release is a problem. Any advertisement is a problem. The websites themselves are not the problem, and there is already consensus that such content is problematic in regards to establishing notability, as codified in WP:ORGIND. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. Even if potentially notable, WP:TNT applies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wall Street Journal thinks it is a growing concern. If anything this should be draftified rather than deleted. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your back Lightburst, again making mistakes in your assumptions. I wish I'd known you were back, I would have taken you to the arbcom case. The wsj articles is from a press-release and as usual you ignore consensus and prevailing winds scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I would encourage you to strike your WP:PA. Please focus on the content not the editor. Lightburst (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out "mistakes in your assumptions" is not a personal attack, Lightburst. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, which WSJ piece are you basing that on? The ones in the article are just WP:ROUTINE announcements about funding rounds. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these are press releases compared with WSJ articles cited in this discussion:

Press release: Contentsquare Lands $500M Series E Investment Led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2 To Fuel Rapid Global Expansion and AI-Driven Digital Experience Innovation (BusinessWire, May 25, 2021): "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, today announces it has completed a $500 Million Series E funding round. The investment is led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2, which joins existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR, Canaan, Highland Europe, and funds and accounts managed by BlackRock — most of whom also participated in this round."
WSJ article cited above: SoftBank Leads $500 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 25, 2021): "Digital experience analytics company Contentsquare has received a $500 million investment led by SoftBank Group Corp.’s Vision Fund 2, bumping the technology company’s valuation up to $2.8 billion. The SoftBank fund will join existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR & Co., Canaan, Highland Europe and accounts managed by BlackRock Inc., most of which contributed to the latest funding round, according to the company."
Press release: Contentsquare Completes $190 Million in a Series D Round, Accelerating Innovation in Digital Experience Analytics (BusinessWire, May 19, 2020): "Contentsquare, the global leader in experience analytics, announced today a $190 million Series D funding round, bringing total funding to date to $310 million. This round is led by BlackRock’s Private Equity Partners team, who joins existing investors Bpifrance (through their Large Venture fund), Eurazeo Growth, Canaan, GPE Hermes, Highland Europe, H14 and KKR, most of whom participated in this round."
WSJ article cited above: BlackRock Leads $190 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 19, 2020): "Digital analytics company Contentsquare has collected $190 million in fresh funding in a Series D round led by BlackRock Inc.’s Private Equity Partners team. BlackRock joins existing investors, which include Bpifrance, Eurazeo Growth, Canaan Partners, Highland Europe, H14 SpA and KKR & Co., the company said."

Beccaynr (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.