Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contentsquare (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Contentsquare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 19:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NCORP. Multi-billion dollar international company. Three best sources: Wall Street Journal 1, TechCrunch, and Wall Street Journal 2. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are funding announcements, nothing at length about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing has changed in the 3 months since this was last deleted at AfD. The sources in this version of the article are different but problematic for other reasons, as 8 of the 9 references are routine funding announcements, and the 9th is churnalism based off a press release. When a company's only claim to notability is that investors have given them money, that's a dead giveaway that notability isn't there. The company claiming that they are a "multi-billion dollar international company" is not a criteria of WP:NCORP, which specifically points out that big numbers like that don't mean anything. - Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sources are funding announcements and each appears to basically be a rehash of the other. Many, many PR sources, few if any about the company. Directory listings in Gbooks, it peters off from there. Nothing for GNG we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much in French-language sources [1] five things you need to know about the company, [2] This in Forbes France talks briefly about the unicorn funding, rest are funding announcements and PR type stuff. Blogs and the like. So, one ok-ish source, one brief mention and tons of fluff, I don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is an article on Fr wiki about the company, but it wasn't linked to this one. The sources there seem to be about the same quality, perhaps a bit more flowery as they're talking about a French company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This in Le Monde is a brief piece about the funding [3], nothing substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NCORP and insufficient sources per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, e.g. searching the titles of sources reporting funding announcements lead to press releases, e.g. ContentSquare Raises $20 Million in Funding for Global Expansion (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Raised $60 Million Series C Round Led by Eurazeo, Bringing Total Venture Capital Funding to $120 Million Since 2016 (PRNewswire), Contentsquare Completes $190 Million in a Series D Round, Accelerating Innovation in Digital Experience Analytics (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Lands $500M Series E Investment Led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2 To Fuel Rapid Global Expansion and AI-Driven Digital Experience Innovation (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Closes $600M Growth Investment Round Led by Sixth Street; Doubles Valuation to $5.6B and Brings Total Funding to $1.4 Billion (BusinessWire). Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Comment - If you did more than just cursory skimming of the titles, you would see that there’s a lot of in-depth coverage beyond funding. And don’t kid yourself. Billion dollar companies are not ”routine”. Don’t do the encyclopedia a disservice. The nom has stated in the past that he doesn’t have access to the WSJ, so we know he’s not reading the sources. The rest of you can do better. Otherwise, what’s the point? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:ORGSIG, No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. I regret not referencing the previous AfD in my previous comment, because NCORP and the issue of dependence on press releases was discussed. Also, via ProQuest, I can access the WSJ.

  • "Sixth Street Leads $600 Million Investment in Contentsquare; The transaction values the Paris-based customer experience analytics firm at $5.6 billion" Armental, Maria. Wall Street Journal 20 July 2022, ProQuest 2692226382. This is a 493-word article.
    • The WSJ begins: "Investment firm Sixth Street Partners led a $600 million growth investment in digital analytics company Contentsquare, which included $200 million in debt." The press release noted above begins: "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, announced today that it has closed a $600 million growth investment round, including $400 million in Series F equity and $200 million in debt financing"
    • The WSJ continues: "The transaction values the Paris-based company, whose legal name is Content Square, at $5.6 billion, double the $2.8 billion it reached following an investment round last year led by SoftBank Group Corp.'s Vision Fund 2." The press release states, "Since raising its Series E of $500 million in May 2021, the company’s valuation has doubled to $5.6 billion."
    • The WSJ notes other investors include "SoftBank, French national investment bank Bpifrance, Eurazeo SE, KKR & Co. and BlackRock Inc" and the press release notes Sixth Street "joins new and existing investors Bpifrance, Canaan, Eurazeo, Highland Europe, KKR, LionTree, SoftBank"
    • The WSJ includes quotes from the company's self-description, Contentsquare founder and Chief Executive Jonathan Cherki, and Bo Stanley, a Sixth Street partner who is co-head of Sixth Street Growth. The press release includes different quotes from Jonathan Cherki and Bo Stanley.

  This WSJ article is the most-frequently cited source in the article. However, per WP:CORPDEPTH, trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability and examples of trivial coverage include standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as [...] a capital transaction, such as raised capital, so this source does not offer sufficient depth per the guideline to support notability.

  In addition, per WP:ORGIND, examples of dependent coverage include any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) and works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people. If the WSJ had more than churnalism from the press release and quotes from the company, a company employee, and investor employee, i.e. greater depth and distinct independence as outlined in the guideline, we might have a discussion about how strictly to interpret the guideline when a source also includes quotes from the subject. However, this brief article lacks the depth and independence needed, per WP:ORGCRIT, to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Beccaynr, thank you for your detailed comments on the WSJ article. It is very helpful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks for trying to recreate this. I added Forrester's and Frost and Sullivan's analyst coverage of the company, which shows independent notability. The description of the funding as "routine" is deceptive. See the Forrester coverage naming the March 2021 funding as the largest ever for a French company. The later round was even larger. Certainly not routine. To say otherwise insults careful readers and business experts. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Forrester blog/advertisement ("Schedule an inquiry with us if you want to know more about the experience analytics space") discusses the "French Tech Ecosystem" and then is largely an announcement of Contentsquare plans, e.g. "Continue international expansion, by focusing on the US (already 50% of its business) and expanding more in Asia", "Accelerate product and AI innovation", "Continue M&A to enter new analytics segments", similar to what the press release dated the day before says, e.g. "Contentsquare will use the capital to further develop its platform and advance AI innovation to accelerate its market vision", "The newly secured funding will also support Contentsquare’s rapid growth and geographic expansion, M&A activities". Also, Frost & Sullivan appears to require payment for its prizes, and the eight-page report consists of:

  • a cover page
  • a page of introduction about Frost & Sullivan, its award and brief mentions of Contentsquare
  • a page about "the business advantages of digital customer journey analytics" without any mention of Contentsquare
  • a page that continues on about "the business advantages of digital customer journey analytics", then a large paragraph introducing Contentsquare, and then the beginning of a superficial 3-paragraph analysis
  • a page with the continuation of the 3-graf analysis, a brief summary of acquisitions, and the beginning of a superficial overview of key features
  • a page with more key features and a conclusion section
  • a page about the Company of the Year recognition
  • a page about Frost & Sullivan

  so the independence and depth of these sources do not appear sufficient for supporting notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The largest funding round is certainly a WP:BIGNUMBER, but since there's 0 coverage that isn't churnalism parroting a press release or in some way non-independent, it is indeed the very definition of routine, and non-independent to boot. Throwing around claims of large funding doesn't escape the fact that this article is lacking significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, which per WP:GNG is the bare minimum required. - Aoidh (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Comment A lot of words to basically say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suppose I was naïve to think that the folks who voted delete earlier would change their minds after seeing the new coverage. Let’s see what new editors think. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody here is saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this conversation is full of in-depth analysis that editors have clearly put effort into writing. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that WP:NCORP or WP:GNG are met. Coverage is routine, run of the mill corporate annoucements and lack anything resembling in-depth coverage of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting. All the coverage is in reliable third party sources. Lots of in-depth coverage. Largest TWO funding rounds in French tech history. Hopefully the closer will be more discriminating. I’m disappointed at the lack of business savvy editors coming to this article’s defense. This is a glaring problem with Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]