Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profitect

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profitect

[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)

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All fair points as noted. I have replaced the references to company sources with news sources. I am struggling with the flag for advertisement writing. I think it is significantly less advertisement-sounding than the previous version (which was previously accepted). Additional details would be great so I can address them. Cameronjford1 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Cameronjford1[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having such a distinctive name makes the check of WP:BEFORE much easier. Almost a complete black outside of PressWire stuff. No single (nevermind several) significant article on the company from an RS. Full fail of WP:CORPDEPTH (or basic WP:GNG). Britishfinance (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for additional details. I've added more citations, including Forbes and a widely circulated fashion retail publication. Significantly fewer press releases and questionable sources than previous iteration.Cameronjford1 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cameronjford1, do you have any undisclosed connection to Profitect? Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do work for them, yes - I'm trying to figure out how to add the "connected contributor" tag to my main page. However, I am a journalist by education and I'm making every effort to publish a completely unbiased and fully, credibly supported article by Wikipedia's standards. As the previous approved page was clearly written as an advertisement I hope this can at least be seen as an improvement. Happy to discuss further.Cameronjford1 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing your connection. I have added the connected contributor (paid) template to the article talk page with a link to this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above. Cameronjford1, thanks for the Forbes reference. Unfortunately it is written by the CEO of the company so is not independent (and more WP:PROMO), and is also about the space/other companies as well. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above. Thanks for the tip, Britishfinance. Wasn't aware of that. I've removed the Forbes article in question and replaced with other coverage.Cameronjford1 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A straight-up software house selling their products and telling folk via press releases. I hope they do well. Zero WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for the thoughts. Since your comment I have removed some of the more questionable citations and coverage and replaced them. All citations are now linked to major industry and web publications, as well as leading industry organizations. Let me know if you have any other concerns. I'm happy to fix anything not up to Wikipedia's quality standardsCameronjford1 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All of the references I can find fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH including the ones in the article. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 6 March 2019 (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.