Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xactly Corp

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. It has been demonstrated that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Also of note is that the article has been significantly copy edited after the nomination here to address concerns with promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xactly Corp

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

extremely borderline notability relying entirely on announcements of minorawards and similar notices; very highly promotional,and the promotionalism has been restored after being removed. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm familiar with Xactly, and their software/service is a somewhat unique product in the way it allows companies to outsource elaborate sales compensation. I suspect there may be meaningful secondary sources out there that would actually discuss this fact and the company in an NPOV way. The article as it stands is totally promotional and unencyclopedic, however. I'd lean toward stubbifying it and hunting for better sources, but that of course leaves the door open for people to keep using it as a sales pitch. Pinball22 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, Xactly is a publicly traded company on the NYSE. Sections may need reworked to remove marketing speak.--Supiter5 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haave youany evidence they're on the main exchange? The subsidiary ones do not imply notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Gage, Deborah (2014-10-24). "Big-Data Company Shines a Light on the Dark World of Women's Pay". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
2. Conrad, Katherine (2007-06-05). "Xactly finds right spot in downtown San Jose". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
3. Russell, Frank Michael (2010-08-03). "Xactly: San Jose startup wins $12M from Bridgescale, Salesforce, others". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
4. Nakaso, Dan (2014-03-28). "Q&A: Xactly founder Christopher W. Cabrera, on keeping employees happy". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
5. Bryant, Adam (2016-01-09). "Christopher Cabrera of Xactly: Learning to Stay Above the Drama". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The entire article is an interview, so it cannot be used to establish notability. However, I am including this here because it is worth noting that the company's CEO received an article-length interview in The New York Times.
6. Segall, Eli (2012-08-10). "Xactly CEO Chris Cabrera looks to $80M-$100M IPO in 2013". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
7. Schubarth, Cromwell (2015-05-19). "Xactly hopes to raise $75M in IPO". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
8. Schubarth, Cromwell (2015-06-25). "Xactly raises $56M in IPO that falls short of target range". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xactly Corp to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, sorry DGG I hate to strongly disagree with you, but I think this nomination may be an error, per WP:LISTED this is considered notable. I remember speaking with you before regarding what major exchanges are considered to have inherent notability. I believe the guidelines allows flexibility to include the top 20 major exchanges. I remember you considered companies listed on the NYSE which is stricter than my interpretations of WP:CORP and LISTED, however this company is listed on the NYSE. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition is on the primary basis of promotionalism, and the NYSE information depends on whether they are actually on the main board, not the supplemental ones. Given the size of the company , I doubt it very much. A further indication of promotionalism is that the information in the article is deceptive: the "best places to work award" is actually a "best small workplace" award. That "small" makes quite a difference in significance. I notice the information that is in the article DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism is of course an issue than needs to be corrected, however I believe a company cannot be small and listed on the NYSE. I always believe best places to work is not something that should be included on Wikipedia as many companies with some form of market presence has potential to be ranked on a "best places to work". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per notability and reliable sources above shown above. These need to be properly utilissed in the article, which does currently read like a marketing bochure and needs fixing but that is not grounds for deletion outright. Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:04, 3 May 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.