Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaSense

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. ✗plicit 01:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaSense[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Routine coverage, PR and press-release based refs. scope_creep^Talk 00:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons by nominator (scope creep). The article does not carry enough significance to be created. Timothytyy (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A look at the references. Ref 1 to 5,7 is funding news. Ref 6 is a graphics that doesn't convey much information,

Ref 7 "Last week, AlphaSense announced that it had received an additional $50 million in funding" Funding news.
Ref 8 "AlphaSense Acquires Stream by Mosaic" links to [1] stating "Using AlphaSense’s market-leading AI search technology, Stream customers can now rapidly find key business insights within thousands of unique expert interviews, gaining new perspectives on companies across a breadth of industries". This is podcast as press-release. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS.
Ref 9 "AlphaSense Merges with Sentieo" Routine business news failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 10 "AlphaSense offers a financial search engine that helps analysts and portfolio managers find info that's buried in dense text documents, "whether the information is in page 200 of an SEC filing footnote, or a broker research report, a piece of news or conference transcript," says Jack Kokko, CEO of the vendor" A single paragraph they use its search engine technology to search for investment idea. Fails WP:SIRS. Not in-depth and no significant.
Ref 11 A three-line paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS.WP:CORPDEPTH. Single subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT
Ref 12 A three-line paragraph with diagram copied from the website. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGCRIT

As a company its not notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis above. I'm not seeing much else to use for GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What search engine are you using? I looked for three seconds on Firefox and found nice long significant coverage on TechCrunch. This is a billion dollar company. All sources are independent and reliable. Some are in-depth and yes some are also brief, but they are all important in the context of the article. You'll notice that everything is sourced. Few articles can say that. I'll find some more good sources and add them after I finish watching my team. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to revert me, why not just not be abusive? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, User:Timtempleton, coverage of valuations, product launches, funding announcements etc, such as the TechCrunch article, are considered to be routine coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, and as such do not contribute to notability. All coverage I could find from a search was of this nature. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we have a different interpretation of WP:NCORP. It specifically says "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" ... "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". Unicorn funding status is not routine. We have an article about the most valuable unicorns, as well as an article about the term Unicorn (finance). It's not routine in this case, none of the coverage is a standard notice, and most of it is not brief. I know the difference after doing over 100 articles. So the situation described by WP:NCORP and used to disqualify the independent third party sources doesn't apply here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more recent sources added, including an in-depth profile in Business Insider. [[2]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I agree with Scope creep's analysis of the sources; what little coverage exists is of routine investing rather than anything substantial about the company itself, and the two recently added sources are an interview with the CEO followed by a trivial mention, neither of which affects notability. - Aoidh (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and assessment of sources. A source, like the business reporting of the Wall Street Jourtnal can be glanced at to tell if contains promotional material from a PR release. The first sentence of the source states: "AlphaSense Inc., a developer of advanced search tools for parsing financial data, said Wednesday". Fortune, Silicon Valley Business Journal, India Times, TechCrunch, Forbes, Business Insider, and others listing the news releases concerning IPO's or venture-capital funding, are insignificant sources for actual company information and are generally just routine coverage of such events that does not advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 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.