Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ContentSquare

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ContentSquare (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)

Company's coverage is mostly about funding rounds and is thus WP:ROUTINE. Nonroutine significant coverage does not come from RS. This company does not currently satisfy WP:NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is obvious promotion. Forbes contributors are no reliable sources and reports on funding rounds are not significant coverage. Fais WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING Vexations (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment New updates are incorporated after reading the concerns and suggestions. I think it contains references from reliable sources independent of the subject, as per WP:NCORP A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also it's same as WP:GNG but I need help here to understand further. And I think Forbes is a good independent source. I tried to use neutral tone but it may got some advertising tone after new updates. I'll try to neutralize the tone further, if anyone can help editing I'll appreciate it. I am expecting supporting attitude being a newbie. Sorry for anything I may did unintentionally. Thank you CalifornianBlondie (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes sources [1] and [2] are written by contributors. As Forbes notes, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". We don't consider Forbes contributors reliable sources, because the publication does not exercise editorial control over the content of contributor's contributions. Vexations (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: still does not meet WP:NCORP; just an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fixed the tone and removed promotional wording. It's recognized by French senate, Gartner, and is mentioned in many reliable sources other than the one in debate. It operates in multiple locations, have high level clientage and recognized in Europe, USA and the UK and widely accepted within the industry, I mean it's not an ordinary software that non tech people can understand. I think it easily passes WPNCORP and WPGNG which have clear instructions. 73.237.151.248 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC) — 73.237.151.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

73.237.151.248, when you sayI fixed the tone and removed promotional wording, are you referring to this diff?

• Delete fails WP:NCORP and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, mostly due to a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet NCORP and CORPDEPTH. Sam Sailor 07:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks, I thought MarketWatch, La Tribune, Gartner, La French Tech, TechCrunch, Forbes are all reliable, so I thought it would be a good inclusion. Anyway, a good experience so far. CalifornianBlondie (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Undisclosed Paid work. scope_creep (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2018 (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.