- 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. v/r - TP 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CoAction.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. None of the article's references are reliable sources establishing notability: we've got links to the company's own website, the company's press releases as picked up on news wires, the company's Google app store, an entry in a rather spammy-looking "Top CRM vendors" list, and a book where the authors cite a market research report published by the company's predecessor (but don't actually discuss the company itself). Where is the evidence that this company has ever done anything of significance? (The article's sole author indicates that he is the "SEO Head at coAction.com", so there are doubtless conflict of interest issues involved here as well.) Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote "an entry in a rather spammy-looking "Top CRM vendors" list", please explain Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that there are hundreds of self-congratulatory "top x vendors" lists out there whose sole criterion for inclusion is payment of a fee (or reciprocal link or some other consideration), and whose only purposes are to allow customers to claim that they hold some sort of award and to artificially inflate their search engine rankings. As SEO Head of CoAction.com you are no doubt intimately familiar with such tactics. If you disagree with this characterization of the list cited in the article, the onus is on you to prove it's a reliable source rather than mere commercial puffery. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this book "Introduction to Supply Chain Management Technologies", by David Frederick Ross (an Industry Expert) http://books.google.com/books?id=XhL27-Owte0C&lpg=PA114&vq=business-software.com&dq=%2B%22business-software.com%22&pg=PA114#v=snippet&q=business-software.com&f=false (Page 114) having no problem referencing another research by business-software.com. Again did you notice any reference by an expert against business-software.com's research that concludes the bias you just mentioned.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see another recent reference by informationweek.com "To jump-start your review process, Business-Software.com recently released a report listing 10 noteworthy players in the help-desk space."[1] which perhaps makes business-software.com a credible resource, and people within the industry ___domain do not find any problem with it.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this book "Introduction to Supply Chain Management Technologies", by David Frederick Ross (an Industry Expert) http://books.google.com/books?id=XhL27-Owte0C&lpg=PA114&vq=business-software.com&dq=%2B%22business-software.com%22&pg=PA114#v=snippet&q=business-software.com&f=false (Page 114) having no problem referencing another research by business-software.com. Again did you notice any reference by an expert against business-software.com's research that concludes the bias you just mentioned.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that there are hundreds of self-congratulatory "top x vendors" lists out there whose sole criterion for inclusion is payment of a fee (or reciprocal link or some other consideration), and whose only purposes are to allow customers to claim that they hold some sort of award and to artificially inflate their search engine rankings. As SEO Head of CoAction.com you are no doubt intimately familiar with such tactics. If you disagree with this characterization of the list cited in the article, the onus is on you to prove it's a reliable source rather than mere commercial puffery. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote "and a book where the authors cite a market research report published by the company's predecessor (but don't actually discuss the company itself)". The established authors and their publishers felt it is important and credible to use a research reference from the same company which is now renamed to coaction.com[2] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having one market research study briefly cited in a book does not imply that the organization which authored that study is notable. It doesn't even imply that the study itself was notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having one market research study briefly cited in a book does not imply that the organization which authored that study is notable. It doesn't even imply that the study itself was notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
edit- ^ http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/ebusiness/230800044 (Accessed Jun 18th, 2011)
- ^ http://www.capgent.com/ "Capgent is now coAction.com" (Accessed Jun 18th, 2011)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no significant independent coverage in reliable sources about this company under its current or former name. The Top CRM vendor list is from a web site which does not indicate what sort of research or editorial control is in effect for the creation of their lists. In any case, a single list from a single site is far from what is needed to establish notability even if we were to accept business-software.com as a reliable source (dubious). -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2011 (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.