Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baynote (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baynote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

According to this 2008 entrepreneur.com article, Mike Svatek, the marketing director of the software company Baynote, personally wrote the the article about his company under the name of User talk:Mjsvatek. Look at Talk:Baynote for a link to a Youtube video where Svatek speaks about the extreme efforts he took to get that article through a 2007 AFD.

I already removed a company press release that was cited in the lead. Several other articles, (ClickZ.com, ecommerce-guide.com) appear to be puff pieces from marketing websites and are hardly reliable sources.

In light of all this, I don't think that the remaining articles (businessweek, technologyreview.com) are sufficient to establish notability under WP:CORP or WP:GNG. A 2007 AFD was closed "no consensus." Blargh29 (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is independent of problems with the article. If, for example, an article is a copyvio, it may be speedily deleted, but that does not prove that the subject is not notable. Bias in the article can be fixed, but notability is established by Business Week and Technology Review. And ECommerce-Guide is part of Internet.com, and appears to me to be a reliable source. Many articles in mainstream newspapers start with a reporter or editor reading a press release and deciding that it has some news value. -- Eastmain (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See also this reference from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/29/urban-outfitters-software-intelligent-technology-baynote.html -- Eastmain (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Puff" is not, in itself, sufficient argument for deletion. The two cites which are mentioned above are above reproach moreover. [1] mentioned in New York Times. It is not as notable as Microsoft, but WP does not have a bar that high to be sure. Absent a reason to delete ("puff" is not a reason), default to Keep. Collect (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That isn't actually an article in the NY Times: it is a NY Times blog re-post of a CNet article.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavil? The "blog" is under editorial control of the NYT, hence is RS for WP. That a newspaper reprints something does not mean the paper did not "publish" it. In fact, the NYT did choose to publish it on the web. Collect (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a difference (for WP:N purposes) between "article in the NY Times," as it was described and "a CNet article reposted in a NY Times blog," which it actually is. --Blargh29 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Collect. I wrote a small blurb on the talk page about this company's potential COI. I was notified about this AFD, which is perfectly acceptable. Thank you for letting me know. I agree with Collect, puff, and even COI is not sufficent enough to warrant deletion by itseld. The NYT reference of Collect's is enough for me. Ikip (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, after reviewing the references available for this company, most in which Baynote is the central subject. I don't approve of the way Baynote created this page about itself, nor how the company stupidly bragged about how they did it, but this malfease doesnt lessen the company's actual notability. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unambiguous advertising:
  • Websites that utilize the Baynote technology often see a significant return on investment (ROI) in the form of increased online conversion, increased average order value for ecommerce websites, and greater user engagement and page views.
  • Based on an array of implicit behaviors, Baynote’s technology understands a user’s intent and dynamically connects them to the products and content based on the collective wisdom of previous visitors with similar interests or in similar contexts.
  • Implicit approaches, such as the one that Baynote implements, collects the community wisdom that emerges on the web by observing the full-spectrum of user behaviors.
• When it's that blatant, notability is a sideshow we don't even have to look at; this should have been speedily deleted as blatant spam; that's what speedy deletion is for, and yes, advertising content ought to result in the deletion of articles about even notable businesses. Besides, this is another tech business, of the sort that tends to be over-represented in any case. A handful of puff pieces, even in widely circulated business magazines, don't really make much of a case that this business has achieved anything of lasting historical or technical significance. Unless that kind of case can be made, this should be deleted as blatant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Blatant or not, if its correctable, it should be corrected. I will be working to do just that, and invite assistance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - enough references to reliable sources seem to exist to demonstrate notability. However, a complete rewrite may be necessary to remove the promotional tone from this article and resolve the COI problems. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability has been established through numerous reliable sources. Before coming here to offer comment, I began going through article to give it a rewrite so as to remove much of the puff, the sense of advert, and to make it more properly encyclopedic. And no... I am not finished, but it already has a better feel to it. With the many sources available and as provided, it should be an easy matter to create the required inline citations. No matter the author, the article now belongs to Wikipedia and with notability meeting WP:GNG, it should be corrected through regular editing... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as edited. The NYT reference is enough to establish notability. We do not delete, much less by speedy, for advertising content that could be removed. If anyone wishes us to do so, they should try to get it established as a policy. I agree such content is a threat, but that's what editors are for--editors who do things right, like MQS. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD, shows 162 news articles talking about this company. Reading through the summaries that appeared on the first page of the search, I'd say it counts as notable coverage. Dream Focus 02:10, 26 November 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.