Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attentio

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attentio[edit]

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

Declined Prod (on a technical ground). Article has only one cited fact which is cited to a Press Release written and released by Attentio. There is a list of external links that have some content, but in general this company does not seem to pass the notablity guideline in addition to the WP:42 test. Hasteur (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteShows no notability per wp:gng nor wp:42.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So the Telegraph's detailed coverage of its history and its start up is not helpful to GNG?[1] Or some more scholarly analyst using their models?[2] They are used by numerous major businesses and I don't think we need to go through the press releases in a foreign language for each one. A good faith attempt was made with the external links and that and their history seems to push the boundary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analysis provided by ChrisGualtieri, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So one article gives enough to meet GNG? Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 2 sources are just barely tipping the pan, however the Verifyability means that we need to strip this article down to the singular cited fact which is to a press release which means a blank page. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - By itself no. This is a minor mention in the external links for the companies listed - same as on their website. The 404ed link resolves to a minor mention on this archive.org. The Attentio official blog is the main source for some generic run of the mill sources to fill out some of the details for business details that are neither self-serving or dubious.[3] The better 404 linked which I found an archive.org hit for is this and it is better. Though I think this is a good starting point, our coverage of notable businesses has always been knee-jerk and even Fortune 1000 are not covered, many not beyond trivial stubs. Though these just came from the external links already present on the article, which likely helps meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - ChrisGualtieri I know that AFD isn't supposed to be for cleanup, but it might be a good idea to wire these improvements into the article. I got pinged on my talk page regarding a WP:OSE style argument for an AfC draft, so the logical step was to nominate this article on the grounds that it didn't pass muster. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although one article can be enough, I consider the article in the Telegraph an example of PR. I know we use it as one of the most reliable sources, but that doe not mean that everything in it is equally reliable. Signs of being based on PR i is the emphasis on the origin story of the company, the extensive quotes from the developer, the paragraphs about just who has adopted it, and the lack of attention to other programs for doing the same or similar things. I congratulate whatever PR agent it was who was successful in placing this story for his achievement, but PR it remains. (I have noticed several other WP articles that rely on tech-based articles in the same publication that also seem to be PR) DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with DGG. The main source for this article looks a bit too promotional. Many news sources run press releases with absolutely no disclosure, and this looks a bit too much like a press release. If it were truly notable, then we wouldn't have to settle for contested sources. There's a small amount of coverage for this corporation, but not what I would call significant; mostly, it's limited to fundraising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the in-depth coverage in the Telegraph, the company is mentioned is several books on social media monitoring [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (all from reputable, even academic publishers), so it's not simply a case of a lucky break with one journalist. It's true that there are a lot of such companies. There were also a couple of articles about it in Techcrunch [14], something that is uncommon for European start-ups. It might be more suitable to create a single article for all/most of them, with one paragraph for each. But then having the same content spread across a bunch of stubs isn't all that different... One of those tc articles (from 2009) does say that it's crowded market place and lists plenty of competitors [15], so that should alleviate DGG's concern that it's merely disguised PR. Also a bit of coverage here when they opened an Asia HQ in Singapore. Also, their product called Trendpedia has bit of in-depth coverage itself [16] on ReadWrite (and yes that article does mention a competitor's product) and it's also mentioned in about a dozen books. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The company may have actually flopped and gone bankrupt already [17], but that's not a reason to delete. Also, I fixed the link to this article in an INSEAD on-line publication, which is also mostly about Attentio, although unlike the Telegraph piece, it does talk about its competitors. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2014 (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.