Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuestionPro Inc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Speedy Delete. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPro Inc

[edit]
QuestionPro Inc (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)

The speedy tag by DGG was removed with the comment that notability may still be questionable but my searches have frankly found nothing better than a few News links, nothing else to suggest solidly and convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequate notability. Corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Help me improve it, but don't delete. The notability factor has been debated and hence the tag was removed. There was no question on notability, the tag was about better citation, one that I did not remove even after adding more content and it still exists for reference. I also clearly listed examples of companies in the same domain who have less notable links but still allowed to stick around. If you are not aware of the software business they are involved in, then kindly Google the company - It is one of the World's Top 3 companies after Survey Monkey and Qualtrics. I will from my end try to add more relevant information. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Made changes - Added more info. Added more information based on the sources, including the competitors whose pages I have linked. Also added some of their clients. Can you check now SwisterTwister ? Furthermore, I would like to add that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what may not be relevant to some may be critical information for others. Kindly be tolerant- This article meets all 3 standards - Verifiable, reliable and notable links. Thank you.RR007 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 02:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a small survey company that has not garnered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It appears that the creator is an SPA. This article appears to be a case of TOO SOON. This company has not done anything that can be considered notable. To get some perspective, let's look at the "Microsoft" article to see what a notable company looks like; a company which has had significant coverage since at least the 1990's. Also, Microsoft has had a significant impact on the world, on technology, on how we conduct our daily lives, on cultures, and so on. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article has a series of really poor references. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What a lousy excuse Steve Quinn* You are comparing a startup to an MNC? Have you never seen another SMB sector page before ? Here are some from the same industry : Zoho Survey Qualtrics SurveyGizmo SurveyTool. What about these? I can give a 100 more such examples. And please refer to the previous discussion page before putting aggressive names like SPA. I clearly mentioned that I have no correlation with this company, I decided to create this page after stumbling upon the VB article. And iam new here. As for lousy articles : VentureBeat and Livemint are major publications in India, I dono where you live. Thanks. RR007 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First it's worth noting this user started putting my name instead; the thing about this is that there's simply nothing currently for solidity regarding notability and searches had clearly found nothing better at all. BTW, regardless, it's of no importance we either of us live as we're simply examining the article itself and it's not acceptable for Wikipedia, a universal website. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister Did you even check out the edits before commenting again? Or are you just the ranting type? I will not argue with you here anymore, let the admin decide. You are pointless talking to. You have no sense of this industry whatsoever. RR007 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm watching this nomination so there was no immediate need to ping, but about the article, I know you would think the current sources are enough, but there's simply not enough for the solidity Wikipedia needs, we would've need larger and better depth news and there's nothing for that currently. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for you considering to comment but unfortunately Wikipedia is different than simply gauging the number and amount of news sources, at best, this is still questionable overall with there unfortunately not being anything else particularly convincing thus not acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every news source can be the Wall Street Journal. SwisterTwister did you put a delete tag on those other wiki pages I listed? If not, you have no argument here. You have a clear vendetta against this page. RR007 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This editor, User:Unitedopinions, was not satisfied with the deletion of "QuestionPro" - this person then created QuestionPro.com in 2012, which was then proposed for deletion --->[2]<--- after which this editor was notified that the article went to AfD -->[3]<-- and here is the AfD for that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuestionPro.com.
In April 2014, User: Unitedopinions also created Vivek Bhaskaran, QuestionPro's founder --->[4]<--. Perhaps of less concern, User: Unitedopinions added a wikilink to an article here: ---> [5]<---.
Also, for whatever it's worth, I noticed the discussions seemed to involve "software", "webiste", and "company".
Here is a back and forth conversation User:Unitedopinions had with another user in 2012: -->[6]<-- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* I don't know what the fuss is about. The article seems to be neat enough. And I do agree, not every news can be from massive sources like WSJ or NYT. This is an encyclopaedia and as long as the information links are live and reliable there are no issues. This kind of ranting from tenture editors is why Wikipedia is losing its reputation. Prajakta A More (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— Prajakta A More (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
if WP is losing a reputation as a good place to advertise, that's exactly what is wanted. The basic idea behind WP is for it to be an encyclopedia,not a business directory. Its reputation as an encyclopedia will increase as we remove articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the problem, more precisely, is the the sources are simply reporting funding. These are routine notices, not discriminating coverage--all companies that raise money from such funds receive such notices--i'ts a part of the way the venture capital industry publicises itself, and part of the service it offers is to make it possible for the companies to place these notices. As for the other companies mentioned: There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. But as for the details of the articles: Quantics is notable because of the multiple academic references to it, Zoho Survey should be merged to Zoho Office Suite, Surverygizmo is probably borderline, and Survey tool is in my opinion unacceptable--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurveyTool. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG your request for deletion was denied - no wonder you are a fringe element here with these two. And VC funding? This is bootstrapped company! You are not just ignorant but proudly so. You said that Wikipedia is not business directory and yet you dont have problem keeping those pages active. You ooze of hypocrisy and biased resentment.Your request was shut down before, so now shut up. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia on EVERYTHING. Not selective based on your conservative view points. RR007 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think your english is weak - The article said that SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics are VC funded not QuestionPro. God! I removed that part anyway, I dono how many like you are Editors here who can't even read right. RR007 (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to the above (in summation) - previous articles pertaining to this company were requested for speedy delete in 2009, went through AfD in 2009, proposed for deletion in 2012, and then went to Afd in 2012.
Also, interestingly, User:Viksingh0215 and User:Prajakta A More do not exist. These are empty user pages. So, how did these persons add the above comments. They do not appear to be registered with Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you been editing Steve Quinn ? The "pages" dont exist, not the users. If you don't know the difference yet, go figure. RR007 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry you're right about the pages - my bad. How is this company a "startup", as mentioned above, because according to the first sentence in the article, the company was founded in 2002? I mean it's been 14 years... Steve Quinn (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that was my bad. It would fall under the Small and Medium sized business sector. The firm has 2.5 Million users cause its cloud based but the number of employees as per their LinkedIn account is no more than 200. I did my research before deciding to write this article.RR007 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't tell this person that notability was established, but that the sources and claim of significance were enough to avoid speedy deletion(IMO). As stated by others, the sources offered are routine and technical and don't indicate what is notable about this "startup"(to use the term the page creator is using). It is WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was the case, if you were so convinced that the page shouldn't exist, why did you not replace the speedy deletion tag with a normal deletion tag? Instead you place a citation tag on it, and now that you see your seniors are here objecting it, you are here to reverse your claim. Also, what is significant about this "SMB" (I corrected myself, please read), is what is mentioned in all the links - One of the World's top 3 companies in survey software, has over 2.5 Million users, over 4000 corporate clients which include some of the best and well known companies in the World, has become a part of Make in India campaign (very few have openly done this), platform used by some prominent humanitarian organisations - to name a few. Thank you.RR007 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Maintenance tags draw attention to whatever issues that they name. If someone saw it and felt the page merited deletion on those grounds at that time, it is what it is. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not 'cave' to anyone or anything. I cannot control what the hundreds of thousands of other people here might do. I never said citation was the only problem. It also is not up to me to defend the article you believe should exist, it is up to you. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument "use by X thousand organizations" is not usually relevant, because all large organizes use a great variety of products, most of which will not be notable . It can be a relevant oagument when the particularproducts is rcentral to the activities of the other organizations--like the thousands of computer companies using Intel. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I agree with you. However, there is a different between B2C and B2B products. B2C being consumer centric, like computers, usually command more awareness, hence you or other editors here might know about them. However, there are plenty of products like the ones by QuestionPro (market research software) which are critical to the organizations like Google, Microsoft, HP and so on, but you may not know about it but it matters a lot to many people. I suggest you study a little about this field. No pun intended. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Kindly also note Wikipedia is not a consumer centric organization. It's readers come from varied backgrounds. This article may not be viewed important given that many editors here are not aware of how important market research survey tools actually are, but a little research (even within Wikipedia) will show you just how critical it really is. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The article does not indicate how this company's services are "critical" to any organization. Do you have evidence that, for example, this company's products influenced Microsoft to make some business decision, in some way that a competitor's product would not have done? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know that Microsoft is their client. And I was saying that B2B platforms used for research purposes rarely make it to the news. Its the research report that does. Hence, even the fact that Microsoft and other big firms use their platform to begin with is important news for may readers.Again, it's not your fault, most editors here simply don't have enough knowledge on how the industry works. This is also what happens when football enthusiasts are allowed to determine the future of business pages. RR007 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't have reliable sources stating how this company's products influence their clients, that is a problem. It needs to make the news or an independent business publication. It isn't enough to say "Microsoft uses it, so it influences them." We need to know how. If you don't want "football enthusiasts" to comment on business articles, you will need advocate changes to Wikipedia policy and practices. One doesn't need to be knowledgeable in business to see that you don't have reliable sources indicating notability. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable Newspapers I have cited articles from VentureBeat and Mint_(newspaper). Do you not find them reliable enough? RR007 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was meant to bite you or not bite you; simply to state a fact. Your edit history indicates no(from what I can see) edits outside this topic. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly wrong. I have made edits since I joined but I also made it very clear that this article was my very first contribution. It is when I read this company's article on VB, wanted some more info about companies in this field and saw that there was no article. Thats when I joined. And started editing other articles as well. So you cannot blame me at all here. And so, your ignorance did bite me and let me tell you something more. I always heard that in Wikipedia there is a clear bias against businesses, even though a huge chunk of your readers are business readers, but now i really understand the problem that Wikipedia is so unpopular about. Iam dissapointed to say the least but I will be active here to do my part in making Wiki better. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined your edit history and see no edits that don't have to do with this company; if you have made such edits under your username, it isn't many of them, which means the SPA tag is valid. It isn't necessarily a bad thing; just a fact. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 2 days, I have made 5-6 edits out of this page (thanks to you guys trying to take down this one and me having to spend most of my free time explaining why you shouldn't) and of them some are related to the pages that I visited the process of checking out pages in the same industry as this company. So I don't really expect you to remove it, since I know now by experience that you are not so very reasonable, but Iam making my point clear here. It isn't necessarily a bad thing; just a fact. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note The company also has users across 40 countries. Not to mention 2.5 Million of them because they work on the Freemium model. Even if you ignore their corporate clients, these users across the world are interested in knowing about the company they sign up for and Wikipedia being an independent aggregator of all information online is the first place they will want to visit.RR007 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for informing this company's clients or potential clients about anything. They (I presume) have their own website to do that. Wikipedia is not an "independent aggregator of all information online", it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To that argument Every other information on Wikipedia is available in some of the other website. So why does it exist by your argument? Wikipedia pages are created for readers, independent of their background. But again, like I said, football readers will not understand the importance of business pages here. Also to highlight the fact that articles that can help even terrorists make bombs still exist, its not subjective to what kind of readers they want. Probably work on those first before hitting a company page if you are so concerned? Thank you. RR007 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am at a loss to understand where notability is supposed to come from and why so many (?) editors appear to believe that notability exists. Discounting its own web-site, one ref demonstrates that it exists, two refs show that it has been involved in a merger and all the others give every indication of being based very largely on press releases even if the publisher of the press releases is acceptable as an authoritative source. I see nothing notable her. Nothing independent, nothing authoritative. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs)
Can you show how those major articles are press releases? Especially when you are also calling them authoritative sources? And as for the merger, when a small company is merged with a larger, the larger keeps the name-in this case QuestionPro. Thank you.And please sign your comments.RR007 (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are press releases because they merely announce the release of a product, feature people from the company discussing the merits of the product, and at least one provides company contact information to learn more. Clearly a release put out by they company that was simply republished; it is not an independent reliable source. Also see WP:ORGIND. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice theory. But again, prove your claim. You cannot because there is no truth in what you claim. RR007 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not a theory, this is common practice. Even the supposed interview with the founder (link here:[7]) on one of the websites is a press release announcing its new clients. This information is aimed at investors and maybe some clients. It is not independent reporting because it definitely appears to be simply published as is. There is no journalistic reporting here; it it is the founder tooting his own horn and a web publication hungry for content (so it can sponsor the advertisements you see surrounding headlines and content after you click on the headline). I'm guessing it is a tech industry mouthpiece, based on its main page "news" - which is almost all tech related. This is not a newspaper like the New York Times or LA Times or Boston Globe and not a magazine like Time, or The New Yorker. This is a really trivial source. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, QuestionPro has published online a common strategy now used by thousands and thousands of businesses large and small: Five Tips for Getting Your Press Release Published (external link provided). And, right up front it comments on the problem in our modern day news departments across the country - they are understaffed. Then it touts the "five step" process for taking the load off shrinking news organizations (or in other words, exploiting the harried staff).
To get an idea of the changes taking place in the media industry, see this article: PR Industry Fills Vacuum Left by Shrinking Newsrooms.
As an aside, it is not only staff size that is shrinking; available resources from the parent media corporation for their respective news organizations are also shrinking. From Pew Research's Excellence in Journalism Project:

"Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007" ([8])

This is Steve Quinn reporting from Wikipedia ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response "In 2008, a team from the Palo Alto Research Center found that for editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 to about 15%, and people who only make one edit a month were being reverted at a 25% rate. According to The Economist magazine (2008), "The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as "wiki-lawyering". In regards to the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors since the 2007 policy changes, another study stated this was partly down to the way "in which newcomers are rudely greeted by automated quality control systems and are overwhelmed by the complexity of the rule system."
Another complaint about Wikipedia focuses on the efforts of contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs, who push their point of view in an effort to dominate articles, especially controversial ones. This sometimes results in revert wars and pages being locked down. In response, an Arbitration Committee has been formed on the English Wikipedia that deals with the worst alleged offenders—though a conflict resolution strategy is actively encouraged before going to this extent. Also, to stop the continuous reverting of pages, Jimmy Wales introduced a "three-revert rule", whereby those users who reverse the effect of others' contributions to one article more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked.
In a 2008 article in The Brooklyn Rail, Wikipedia contributor David Shankbone contended that he had been harassed and stalked because of his work on Wikipedia, had received no support from the authorities or the Wikimedia Foundation, and only mixed support from the Wikipedia community. Shankbone wrote, "If you become a target on Wikipedia, do not expect a supportive community."

From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 RR007 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of issues with Wikipedia itself are not germane to this discussion; visit the Village Pump to discuss your concerns and views. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RR007: My eyes still work and I can read; it isn't a 'theory', it's what I see. You, clearly, have a different view, albeit one not grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a different viewpoint cause I do not write on the basis of probability. It's either there or it isn't. Your views are biased and mine arn't. RR007 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not biased. If you can provide adequate sources to indicate notability, I have no problem with this article. Have you even reviewed the notability guidelines and reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QuestionPro_Inc&oldid=1089522212"