Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeskTime (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 delete. Happy to restore for the purpose of merging, if anyone is interested in that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeskTime[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)

A previous article instance was deleted at AfD in 2017. The present recently-created article instance is sourced to start-up coverage and to publicity around 2014 and 2017 studies published by the firm (including a Forbes Contributor item and an article authored by someone at the firm itself), which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Although a recent review of the product's features and pricing options can be found [1], I don't regard that as sufficient in itself for WP:NSOFT and am not finding the reliable, 3rd party coverage about the company and its product required to demonstrate attained notability. (A redirect to the Draugiem.lv parent could be an option, though DeskTime is not mentioned there.) AllyD (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PR fluff Dexxtrall (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. The only RS I could find is WP:FORBES, but the source doesn't seem to be independent of the subject being covered. Either way, the subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG threshold. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Draugiem.lv since DeskTime appears to be a product of that company. Maybe at one time they thought of spinning it off to a separate company? The notability case is easier for a combined article on a company and its products, until each product reaches the threshold by itself. Or delete if that is consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per W Nowicki, given sources proving the relationship between the software and company. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the sources in Latvian being taken into account for this article? Because a couple of sources are articles in the web editions of national newspapers in Latvia, that could definitely be considered as reliable sources and the articles are solely about the company, which should take it above the "trivial coverage" threshold. As the notability guidelines state that sources do not have to be written in English, my reasoning when translating the article into English was that these sources should be sufficient for notability. However, based on the comments above, I'm not sure whether these sources have been considered unreliable or just simply ignored? Cdsfd (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether the sources are "reliable" or not, but whether they meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. They must also contain "Independent Content" and in-depth information. So nothing which simply regurgitates company executives or announcements but independent opinion/analysis etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 diena.lv item is effectively a paraphrase of the Forbes Contributor piece from 2 days previously, so I don't think has any stronger standing than the Forbes Contributor piece itself. The 2017 la.lv item consists largely of direct quotations from the company CEO. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either based on interviews, standard business listings or short articles based entirely on information provided by the company and/or their execs - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 8 December 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.