Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kissmetrics[edit]

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

This unfortunately failed to get deleted at AfD 2 years ago; but it was not notable then, and is not now. The lawsuit is trivial and there isn';t much else. The sources in the article are mainly PR, and the others listed at the previous afd were essentially mere mentions among many other similar and better known services. There was 1 case study, but that's not notability DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics was closed in November 2016, which is five months ago, not two years ago. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People make mistakes, I don't see why this is worthy of a comment but okay. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case study in the 2016 book The Lean Entrepreneur published by John Wiley & Sons provides extensive coverage of the subject.
The Wired and TechCrunch articles provide significant coverage about the subject and are not press releases. They are written by established journalists and published by reputable news organizations. I agree with Cavarrone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics that "I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote."
Here is another article about the subject:
1. Valentino-DeVries, Jennifer (2011-08-22). "'Supercookie' Code Seen on Hundreds of Sites". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley originally found that cookies stored in the browser’s “cache” of previously visited websites could be used to respawn cookies on Hulu’s website. Code responsible for this capability came from a company called Kissmetrics, which analyzes website-traffic data.
  But the Kissmetrics code wasn’t limited to Hulu. Technology researchers Ashkan Soltani, who worked on the original Berkeley study, and Nick Doty analyzed the top 1 million websites and found that 515 of them were using the same Kissmetrics code. The “sole function” of that code was to “set a persistent identifier via the browser cache,” Soltani wrote.
  ...
  The websites containing the code included music service Spotify.com, personal finance site Mint.com, crafts marketplace etsy.com, government site challenge.gov and profiles site about.me.
  ...
  Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available. (Your Digits blogger had a bit of trouble finding it on the Kissmetrics site, but it can be found here or by Googling “Kissmetrics opt out.”)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kissmetrics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics participants: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Cavarrone (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Zppix (talk · contribs), Patar knight (talk · contribs), CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs), Pwolit iets (talk · contribs), Mbridge3000 (talk · contribs), AKS.9955 (talk · contribs), Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs), Pyrusca (talk · contribs), Light2021 (talk · contribs), and Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. As a side note, Cunard, you don't have to copy the entire text of references into AfD discussions (something you've been doing far too often), just post a link. Less is more. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Light2021 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous keep arguments from the last AFD, which show that target satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Since then, additional more than passing coverage has occurred (e.g. [1]). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the source offered above now and it's not only a solely-specific publishing for the business trade, the information in fact says "Companies you should know about and about them", showing how's it's not simply a "anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published" (quoted by WP:CORPIND), but also it's a list of other "potential" companies, thus case closed for any confirmed notability. Our applied policy is WP:What Wikipedia is not, which is not interchangeable with guidelines. Unless other better coverage can then be offered, simply claiming we should keep alone, is something that should've actually occurred when the 1st AfD's claims of "it's notable", not if it still happens. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 11 April 2017 (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.