Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartAction

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartAction

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

Article has been speedied once and it declined, though it doesn't meet WP:CORP and it fails notability. Spam should not allow in the article and it is purely a minor company. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious advertising for a non-consumer business: a provider of automated "virtual agents" that answer and make calls for contact centers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources, so NN. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What are the criteria for "reliable sources"? NewScientist.com, SpeechTechMag.com, and KurzweilAI.net are all significant media sources (science/industry publications) that have been established for many years and have a large readership. The AGI theory developed by Peter Voss, the founder and chief scientist at SmartAction, appears as a chapter in the 2007 book "Artificial General Intelligence" published by Springer, the world's largest STM (science, technical, and medical) publisher. What is notable (and what caught my attention, as well as that of significant third-party media sources including those mentioned above) is the technology (AGI and AGI-based IVR) developed by this company, rather than the commercial aspects of the company. I propose editing out any text that sounds commercial, but retaining the discussion of the technology. The Wikipedia page name could also be changed to "SmartAction IVR" to highlight that the focus is on the technology, rather than the company. R001605 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — R001605 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- speechtechmag I don't call that "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- kurzweilai This is significant. So, you just need another source to satisfy "multiple". --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- newscientist This is borderline significant. So I'm now neutral. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator is actually a newbie which using single purpose account. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment eh, at under 100 edits...those being the creation and defense of an article I can understand why they are a spa...if there was variety in their edits at this time it would shock me.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, and no 3rd party sources for notability of the product. AGI is certainly notable, and so may Voss, but that can not necessarily be extended to the product. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. It's quite a learning curve! I had added more information about the technology to make the article more "encyclopedic", but then got told that this information makes the article less encyclopedic! I'm now thinking that I'll remove most of the information and integrate the remaining notable aspects with the artificial general intelligence and interactive voice response articles. I notice the artificial general intelligence article already has a reference to Adaptive AI, Inc.—the R&D parent of SmartAction—but no article yet. So perhaps I should start an article for Adaptive AI, Inc. and shift the relevant information over to that article? Any suggestions are appreciated—especially constructive feedback regarding what to do (as opposed to what not to do). I'm trying to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As some other editors have noted, there is notable information here that deserves to be in Wikipedia, but there is extraneous information which I had uncritically picked up from the news articles and company website that sounds like advertising and should be removed or rewritten. Thanks, R001605 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the suggestion that the technology (AGI) that SmartAction created is certainly notable, but that the product and the company aren't notable: Isn't this a bit like saying the Olympic records set by Michael Phelps are notable, but Michael Phelps himself isn't notable? Either way, something here is clearly notable, so I would like to preserve what is notable, and would appreciate any suggestions (or direct help) on how to do that. It would be disappointing and discouraging if the first toe I dipped into the Wikipedia pool got frozen or bitten off needlessly ;-) Thanks, R001605 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm throwing an ignore all rules vote in on this one. While I don't believe that this article has enough significant sources yet, it has been steadily improved since I nominated it for speedy deletion two weeks ago. Now it reads like an encyclopedia article (well more than some I have read) and it is quite interesting in my opinion. ROO1605 has demonstrated her/his ability to take constructive feedback and significantly improve an article...something myself and many other editors could learn from. so while I don't believe this article will be up to standard by the time this AFD is over, I think it has the potential to be a good article...hence the WP:IAR vote.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Coffeepusher, for your vote of confidence! It means a lot to me, and gives me new energy and motivation to continue improving my Wikipedia editing skills. I found, and added, two third-party references that I think relate to notability of the product: SoCalTech.com is the leading high tech news site for Southern California tech companies. It has two recent mentions of major new customers signed by SmartAction: Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics and Technology for Business. Considering that it is hard for new products to enter an established market, I doubt that these two companies would have signed up for SmartAction's IVR product if it wasn't "notable". But I'm not yet sufficiently experienced with Wikipedia's standards to know whether these two references qualify as notable mentions of the product. I'd appreciate any feedback. R001605 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability/achievements/recognition presented. Mukadderat (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author, company, and book should be included in some form as they have been covered in reliable independent sources. It's not huge notability, but it's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This source has significant coverage and should be added. I didn't see it in the refs section [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ChildofMidnight, I've added the reference. R001605 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mukadderat, the article lists several independent, third-party references. At least three of these (NewScientist, KurzweilAI, and Publico.es) are indisputably significant news sources, so the fact that they consider the company and its products important enough to feature them, is a strong indication of notability. As far as achievements and recognition are concerned, the strongest evidence is significant customers willing to pay real money for the product. A quick Google search immediately brought up two significant customers (Motivational Fulfillment & Logistics (MFALS) and Technology for Business) and I'm sure a more thorough search would produce more. MFALS has been in business since 1977 and counts some of the world's largest companies among its clients: Walmart, General Motors, Walt Disney, Sears, American Express, Citibank, Home Depot, and many others. Here's what Hal Altman, MFALS founder and CEO, says about SmartAction and its products: “Up until we acquired the SmartAction solution we didn’t offer our clients the option to answer their customer-service calls with an IVR. We have been giving a ‘human touch’ service since we launched our business in 1977, but many of our clients asked us to lower their costs by handling routine customer-service calls with an automated self-service solution. We chose SmartAction because of their superior technical capabilities, highly competitive prices and, above all, total commitment to give us headache-free service from A to Z.” That sounds like "recognition/achievement" to me—not bad for a company that started commercial operations barely six months ago in a tough economic environment. R001605 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep More depth in the sources would be better, but there is certainly independent notice. This might work better as a section at Peter Voss, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:11, 2 September 2009 (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.