Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feedzai (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedzai

[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)

Issues from the last WP:AFD persist. While sources have been added, the quality hasn't changed much, as added coverage is limited to funding round announcements, interviews with executives and brief coverage about the number of patents that they have filed for. What WP:NCORP requires is significant coverage about the operations and impact of the company, and it seems that it's still WP:TOOSOON for that, unicorn status notwithstanding. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Portugal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I was notified of this discussion by the article's main editor, Ssfdz, who has a conflict of interest.) I think the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and VentureBeat references might be enough to establish notability, but I'm not sure of the reliability of (and can't really evaluate) the Portuguese sources. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address Tol's comment - the Portuguese media sources provided are all very reputable and notable. Links to their Wikipedia sites are included:
Ssfdz (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Ssfdz[reply]
- Comment It is largely irrelevent whether the publications mentioning the topic company are "reputable and notable" so long as they pass WP:RS. Since the topic is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and the references fail ORGIND as they are entirely based on information/PR/Announcements from the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have located several analyst reports on the topic company (e.g. Gartner, Forrester, Aite) which pass WP:NCORP. Topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is a unicorn inherently notable? No. Is significant, independent sourcing evident? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nope, a unicorn is not inherently notable. We look to NCORP's criteria for establishing notability for companies for that and we look for appropriate references. It is long established that analyst reports that profile the topic company meet NCORP's criteria for intellectually independent in-depth opinion and analysis. Although many of the reports are only available to purchase, we can see that the topic company has been profiled in the following:

More than enough to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources mentioned can indicate notability for a publicly traded company per WP:NCORP, which this is not. Notability not established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what NCORP guidelines say. Which guidelines say that analyst reports can only establish notability of publicly traded companies? With respect, what you're saying does not make sense at all, there's no difference in our criteria for companies whether they're publicly traded or not. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It’s time to close this discussion as no consensus. To quote the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This has already been to AFD. Issues persist since then. So far I have only seen one policy based argument, the other is just "per" that vote. Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP, and these reports are not appropriate sources to demonstrate notability. It is my interpretation of NCORP that analyst reports can be used for publicly traded companies. This is not a publicly traded company. There is a special allowance for the use of analyst reports at NCORP because publicly traded companies are likely to be notable but may not have been covered by traditional media sources. Being publicly traded on a well known index is almost in my view, a de-facto indicator of notability. This discussion should be left open for as long as possible to allow for more commentary. It is likely this article will be up for discussion again if it is just closed and the issues left unaddressed. I am quite concerned that hidden reports are all that is being relied on. While WP:PAYWALL technically applies, surely if these are the only sources, this is a verifiability issue. Usually someone, somewhere on Wikipedia has access to paywalled content through the library or another means. I do not see evidence anyone relying on these analyst reports has even read them, given the $3000+ fees...how can someone rely on sources not read? Can anyone here declare they've read the source and summarise what it says? MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP" - I think you meant to say "My Delete !vote and one Keep !vote have been debating NCORP guidelines"? The purpose of AfD is to determine whether the topic is notable (or not). You're saying analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies - I assume you're basing that assumption on WP:LISTED which says:

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Applying your logic to all of this sentence would also imply that "independent press coverage" also can not be used except for publicly listed companies. Clearly that isn't the case. Analyst reports are regarded as in-depth, significant and independent.
Now, although I do not have access to the full versions of those reports, nor even to the parts of those reports that talk about the topic company, parts of reports that deal with specific companies are sometimes made available by those specific companies. This is useful for those that have not seen or read analyst reports previously. You often need to provide a "business" email address in order to receive a link to the company-specific reports. I have managed to locate sections that do not require a business email address - this is an extract from the Aite Matrix report for SAS and here is one for NICE (another vendor). I believe it is safe to assume that these reports meet NCORP criteria for those companies and I also believe it is safe to assume that the sections on this topic company will also be sufficient to meet NCORP.
Finally, you're aware of WP:PAYWALL but WP:NEXIST also says we only require the *existence* of suitable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the *possibility* or *existence* of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. So while I have not seen any of the reports in which the topic company has been listed in the table of contents as being covered by analysts within the report, I have read hundreds of analyst reports and those from reputable analyst firms are as close to a gold standard that we have for meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 22 June 2022 (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.