Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frosmo

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Frosmo

Frosmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "depth of coverage is debatable, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, please use WP:AFD". I do not consider the sources present there to be sufficient, and I cannot find anything else. [1] seems to be a description of the company at some Finnish event (they got an unnotable award, maybe?). Next source is a blog of some company called "Padtravel". There is routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE) of funding it has secured from ArcticStartup (a website which describes himself as PR-related) and travolution, a niche portal devoted to online travel industry. There's another blog about the company from Adweek. The best source may be [2], as venturebeat looks a bit more reliable, but even if we count it as somewhat reliable website with decent reach (Alexa rank 2k+), notability requires more then one good source. You know, the section about coverage in multiple reliable sources? As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: what is your assessment of the AdWeek coverage? ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kvng: Adweek is a trade journal that seems to include some blogs; it's reliability is borderline. I guess it really depends on whether we can establish that this article is good faithed - or is it paid-for PR piece? And I just cannot muster much good faith when it comes to marketing publications (and AGF is not required for off-wiki sources). Tell me: what makes you think this would be an acceptable source? Why would you trust it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete- a thinly disguised advertisement. There are lots of companies in the world; some are notable and most are not, and I'd need to see more than just the usual run-of-the-mill churn that every company gets regardless of its actual significance. Wikipedia is not a billboard and has, rightly, always defended itself against being used as one. Reyk _YO! 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Reyk: are you arguing that the cited coverage of this company is WP:ROUTINE or are you making some protest about WP:NCORP?

I didn't mention NCORP at all, so what is the point of that question? I am saying that the article is an advertisement masquerading as an article and is based entirely on the low-key usual churn that every company accumulates regardless of its significance. Reyk _YO! 10:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK so it is spam and should be deleted per WP:DEL4. This requires you argue that the article contains "no relevant or encyclopedic content". That seems like a pretty high bar to clear. The information in the article is verifiable and some criticism is included so it is not entirely unbalanced or promotional though there certainly is room for improvements in these departments. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to continue pestering everyone who disagrees with you? Reyk _YO! 20:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I entered this with open mind about whether this should be deleted. I originally deprodded not because I was convinced that it should be kept but because it didn't look like an uncontroversial deletion. In my comments here, I was trying to help you make a more solid case for deletion as your initial statement wasn't particularly specific to this article. Sorry if I annoyed you. I'll shut up now. ~Kvng (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - None of this convinces at all for the applicable companies and general notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Is this some sort of C-P !vote? What are you referring to when you say "this"? ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability established by: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kvng: No, I am sorry, you don't get off so easily: you are essentially saying it is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because random links. I spend 30 minutes reviewing them and I posted my criticism of them above. Post your analysis of them, and why you consider them to satisfy notability, please. This discussion is based on arguments, not on votes and ILIKEITs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

AdWeek is a trade publication in the subject's industry. Coverage here indicates notability within that industry. There are two references from AdWeek concerns both have bylines and coverage is significant. You have acknowledged VentureBeat as a reliable source. The coverage here is significan if a bit bloggy but subject to editorial control so I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't know anything about Internet Weekly News or Entertainment Close-Up other than they are in the database at HighBeam and have covered the topic. Coverage here is significant but does have a PR smell to it. We've already met the multiple sources requirement with AdWeek and VentureBeat but I've included these to show there's a bit more out there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do appreciate your arguments about the sources, and yes, we have 2, maybe 3 relatively in-depth sources. I am, however, still not convinced they are reliable. Perhaps it's my bias given the spam I see and the regular yearly PR-scandals on Wikipedia, but I have trouble seeing anything from this industry as reliable, because too many sources used to prop up notability of such companies seem like they could be selling coverage (i.e. working on the "pay for an article and we will write a story about you"). No, I don't have proof for that, and perhaps the ones here are above reproach. I am, however, going to demand proof of reliability of such trade publications: can you show that VB or in particular, Adweek, are seen by neutral observers as reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here. You may find someone interested in continuing this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Simply to note, I'm still going with Delete as regardless of any outstanding news sources, the article still insinuates there's simply still not enough for solidity and is best removed from mainspace until said better can be available. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on a weak level, having received significant coverage in two bylined news articles published by reliable sources. Source examples are listed below. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. It does not extol the benefits or greatness of the company, nor does it encourage readers to do business with the company in any manner. The article also includes criticism of some of the company's products, which is certainly not advertising. The article simply provides a neutral overview of this software company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• "Frosmo Social Optimizer Helps Sites Track Users and Customize To Increase Revenue". Adweek.
• "Frosmo’s analytics help web sites engage with people, not numbers". VentureBeat.

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.