Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone OnDemand

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. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone OnDemand[edit]

[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)

Insufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices sources that meet WP:NCORP. See the more promotional earlier version in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not pass the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated article and added many new sources. Please check again and also do a search in Google news for more citations. Webmaster862 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. I'm changing my vote because the article has had significant changes since being nominated. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is publicly traded on NASDAQ and has 32 pages of results in Google news. I have added a few new citations and expanded the history section.Webmaster862 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Seems the page was vandalized in October 2020 by an IP editor and major portions removed. He cited marketing language. I am bringing back some portions that don't sound promotional and re-adding some old citations.Webmaster862 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient sources that meet the criteria for notability. For example, Gartner have provided independent analysis based on vetted customer reviews. Forrester have also provided analysis. I've removed the section on the "fund" as it was unnecessary and promotional, especially to list the companies which were funded. Otherwise, Topic meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gartner provides directory information and aggregated customer reviews, not analysis. They have exactly he same reliability as Yelp. The Forrester review was commissioned by the company. We shouldn't just glance at the sources--but read them, looking for the tell-tale indicators that they are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well yes, the link I provided is to the analysis based on aggregated reviews which I accept not everyone will see that it meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but Gartner have also included the company in research reports on "Talent Management Suites" for years and included in their 2020 research report on Content Service Platforms. And while the Forrester report was commissioned by the topic company, page 4 of the report makes it clear that Forrester maintained editorial control over the study and its findings. There are many other research firms that have included this topic company in their research and analysis and the topic company includes this list on their website. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:23, 31 August 2021 (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.