Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software)

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. Whilst there is agreement that the article is currently sub-optimal and needs cleaning up, AfD is not for this and there is no consensus to delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kampyle (software)

Kampyle (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, terrible sourcing and of the three RSes only one checks out - and that's not enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be a notable Israeli start-up. Coverage in TechCrunch and VentureBeat. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm commenting since this is close to relist; everything listed here is still PR in of itself, see the 1st TechCrunch for example, "Kampyle realized that all along, they were actually sitting on top of what could be a potential goldmine for their customers. The epiphany occurred when Kamyple began noticing that customers were employing user feedback as lead-generation....This meant that Kamyple could completely revamp their sales strategy and pricing. From a nice-to-have feedback analytics product for Marketing departments, they could now market the product"; that is entirely PR because it's thinly veiled "journalism" but is in fact clearly words from the company itself, because like anything else that involves a company's history and activities, who knows it better than the company itself. The concerns of PR outweigh anything else here in the fact that if we accept any particles of PR itself, it's only a snowball clause for a PR article itself. The VentureBeat article says "Kampyle lets you know when no one likes your desktop software....Kampyle lets you know when no one likes your desktop software", which not only then shows a photo of what the business looks like but then shows how to use it that's then the end of the article. Years ago, we may have looked at this and thought that's suffice coverage, but considering how PR-bombarded Wiki has become, we simply have to be careful about what we actually consider as sufficient or acceptable; especially if the said PR causes damages. The next one, the other TechCrunch then shows, albeit not blatant explosive PR, but still only mentions expected and unsurprising company information with each and every of its 5 paragraphs, which is essentially to simply show what the business is and how it works; that's not actually outstanding coverage. The next TC article then says [Kampyle] has developed a feedback management platform aimed at assisting site owners better manage this feedback loop and, along the way, increase customer loyalty and satisfaction. The underlying premise here being that users expect not only to be heard, but also responded to. This is especially true when providing feedback on services, products or customer experiences. Sites that manage their feedback right end up with deeper customer engagement, lower shopping cart abandonment, and better usability" and the next information goes to talk about what the business is and how it works....that's it. Essentially, it's simple to say that any of that information would imaginably come from the best source about it, which is the company itself. The next TC article is a blatant PR one, "Kampyle Confirms Funding, Kicks Off Beta Test For Application Feedback Product....Last year was a pivotal one in the life of Kampyle, which complemented its round of financing with a blow-out year across all KPI’s. Customer growth rate surged 600%, up 25,000 for a total of 35,000 (although Finkelstein did not share how many of these are paying customers)....Kampyle is enhancing its current feedback products....Kampyle believes it’s able to provide the holistic, end-to-end view software developers require to effectively understand their user flow....Kampyle is extending its 20% discount"; none of that information comes from an actual journalist, because it's all PR and PR alone, because not only will the company know best about its own company activities and sales (of course), but they will want to talk about it....in the fact that the article began with an interview with its CEO! To (perhaps) say the worst, that's where the article ended! The next one is a book that although published, is still only a guide showing what it is and how it works, those medias can never be guaranteed to be non-PR especially if the best source of information would have been the company alone. The next book also the contains these hints at either being involved or having the company publish it with involvements, because simply of the information it contains alone. Comparing all of this with the current article finds nothing else convincing as the current article alone is not only simply stating expected information about the company, but there's essentially nothing else of actual substance (note how the listed sources themselves are PR; when would be ever pile PR with additional PR? Never, that is unless we want Wikipedia as a PR platform). If that's honestly the best there is, that would not be an article, and it certainly would not have even been accepted at AfC; at best, it may have been accepted ten years ago, but that's not the encyclopedia that exists and hopes to exist now, that's why we must be careful about what we call coverage, because there's never a guaranteed it's been touched by the company itself as PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Sources that provide positive coverage about topics are not automatically "pr" as a default. This simple, two-letter acronym that is often used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO and not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage offered in the article and above is routine (product announcements, partnerships, etc) and is what's expected of a venture-backed company, with headlines "Kampyle converts insights into lead generation" etc, which is typical of WP:TOOSOON articles.

The article exists solely to promote the company and is not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The news articles I posted above are bylined and written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that regarding the latter, these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites.

Likewise, the book sources I posted above are also reliable and independent. The books' authors and John Wiley and Sons are not out to promote the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and John Wiley & Sons sources found by Safehaven86 (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) provide significant coverage of the subject. The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kampyle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is important to actually look at the sources rather than just believe that they are totally independent. A rewritten press release is still a press release and can never be accepted as an independent sources. Let's look at the sources.

1. Techcrunch 1, 2. 3, 4. - Doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Firstly note that for the purposes of notability, we consider all of these are 1 source. From WP:N a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
   Every single of these "news" articles are written a certain Roi Carthy who is "known in the Israeli and Brazilian startup communities as a connector and advisor." Let's also look at 4 which says I had a chance to sit down with Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein who officially confirmed that Carmel Ventures led the company’s $1M Series A round, closed back in January 2009. Let's also look at 3 which says When I met Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein last week, the first words that came out of his mouth were.... Sorry but using the company's CEO as a "news" source doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. These articles on Techcrunch are exactly what is called WP:SPIP.
2. Venturebeat Patent WP:SPIP again. Venturebeat publishes literally every small event about startups, often submitted by affiliated freelance writers. It essentially functions like a directory and thus cannot be used for notability per WP:NOTDIR. More importantly look at the language of the article. You gotta be kidding if you believe this is an independent news report. This is "not a bylined, staff report". The author is not mentioned in the list of Venturebeat writers (even in the archived versions of the article). Anyone can submit "news" to venturebeat and it seems they run almost anything.
3. The book sources are not any peer reviewed books. They are essentially the numerous books on technical subjects (with titles like 101 ways of web analytics, how to optimise your website: for dummies). With these books being over 300 pages long, they usually tend to give brief coverage to almost any tools. Btw, this brief coverage is usually a screenshot and a 100 word manual about the software. There are not indepth coverage as required in WP:CORPDEPTH. The books sources essentially confirm that the software WP:ITEXISTS, but not how they are notable.

Apart from the problem with the sources it is also important to look at the type of company. This is a technology startup and tech startups tend to receive disproportionately high coverage in general. Much of this coverage is essentially redressed press releases/lead generation in techblogs like techcrunch, gizmodo and venturebeat. When looking at notability, it is important to look at the baseline coverage for a particular type of entity. A notable tech company will have no shortage of sources in mainstream media and these article are always indepth coverage, not routine coverage. If I compare the sources available for this company, I literally see none. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The TechCrunch articles written by Roi Carthy satisfy WP:ORGIND. Nothing you've quoted has demonstrated that he is not independent of the subject. That he is "known in the Israeli and Brazilian startup communities as a connector and advisor" doesn't make him not independent. That he interviewed Kampyle's CEO as part of his reporting for TechCrunch is good journalistic practice; it does not make him not independent of the subject. His TechCrunch articles are written in his own words with several quotes from Kampyle; this is also standard journalistic practice.

  Regarding the characterization of VentureBeat as publishing anything for startups, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Venturebeat.com, aumag.org, uscops.com, and positivelyaware.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#VentureBeat have concluded that it is reliable because it has editorial oversight. This is a "bylined, staff report". The author is not mentioned in the list of VentureBeat writers because he no longer works for them. He now works for TechCrunch: https://techcrunch.com/contributor/dan-kaplan/.

  It is not necessary for a book to peer-reviewed to establish notability. The book discusses Kampyle in detail, so it is enough to establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

  Cunard (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing you've quoted has demonstrated that he is not independent of the subject Independence has to be demonstrated, not non-independence. Do you have any proof that Roi Carthy has had absolutely no contact with the company or it's employees? A background search indicates that he is pretty well affiliated with the startup industry in Israel. More importantly, isn't it strange that he is the one who is getting all the news? As for Venturebeat and tech blogs, RSN only says they may are reliable for verification, not notability. Oh yeah, Venturebeat published an interview with a person who didn't exist. Oh and TechCrunch got criticised by Venturebeat for "ethical reasons". We have a right to be sceptical of sources, particularly niche media such as these where the lines between disinterested reporting and product placement have been blurred. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Independence has to be demonstrated, not non-independence. – I disagree with this burden of proof. If you claim that the writer is affiliated with the company, you must provide proof of that. It is impossible for me to prove the negative that he is not affiliated with the company. I would need to know and discuss every detail about Roi Carthy's life here to prove he is unaffiliated with the company. That is unfeasible.

  Do you have any proof that Roi Carthy has had absolutely no contact with the company or it's employees? – I can prove he did contact the company. From this article:

  When I met Kampyle CEO Ariel Finkelstein last week, the first words that came out of his mouth were: “Can you tell me who the hell are these people that sit over there in the Valley and invent all these stupid terms like ‘Pivot’ … ?!” He then went on to tell me about the company’s most important product insight since launch and how it is changing their business.

  That he met the CEO of the company as a journalist writing about the company is good journalistic practice. He does not become non-independent of the company just by meeting the company's employees to do reporting.

  More importantly, isn't it strange that he is the one who is getting all the news? – he is a journalist. There is no evidence that "he is the one who is getting all the news". But that he is "getting the news" only means he is doing his job as a journalist.

  As for Venturebeat and tech blogs, RSN only says they may are reliable for verification, not notability. – I disagree. Tech blogs that have editorial oversight and that publish corrections and clarifications like TechCrunch and VentureBeat can be used to establish notability.

  Yes, VentureBeat has made mistakes. So have reputable news organizations like The New York Times (the Jayson Blair "Plagiarism and fabrication scandal"). I do not consider occasional mistakes to render VentureBeat unreliable.

  The VentureBeat article about TechCrunch discussed the ethical issues regarding TechCrunch founder Mike Arrington. VentureBeat called it the "conflict of interest between Arrington the investor and Arrington the editor". According to this article from TechCrunch, Arrington left TechCrunch in 2011, so this is no longer a concern. Those articles were published in 2008 and 2011, however. I searched for a connection between Arrington's venture capital firm Crunchfund and the company Kampyle and did not find any connections.

  Cunard (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re "it is neutrally written"-- I do not get the same impression. With content such as this:

• Kampyle's feedback analytics enhance the capability of a company to understand their website users.^[1][2] Kampyle has processed more than 12 million feedback forms in over 60 languages in 191 countries.^[3]

Kampyle offers a free (very limited) product, a small-business product with differing levels of functionality, and a full-function Enterprise solution aimed at medium and large businesses.^{[citation needed]}

... this page is not in compliance with WP:NOT, which is a policy. "Enhance the ability" it typical advertorial language, while "12 million forms" are claims by the company. Do reader really need oto know that the company "offers (...) Enterprise solution aimed at..."? (Also note the strange capitalisation, which looks typical of COI editing).

The article exists as WP:PROMO content only serving to advance the business, not provide encyclopedic value. If Wikipedia starts accepting such promotional pieces, it would lose its value as an encyclopedia. Keeping this page is not in the best interest of the project, IMO, as it would also waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"enhance the capability of a company to understand their website users" is a description of what the company's product does. While it can be better worded (I reworded it to "intends to improve the company's ability"), I do not consider it promotional. The second sentence is a statistic about how many feedback forms Kampyle has processed; I do not consider the inclusion of this statistic to be promotional. However, since the statistic is sourced to a press release, I removed it since it is not corroborated by a secondary reliable source. The third sentence is a description of the company's product. I have revised the article.

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

  Cunard (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Take that away and there'll hardly be an article left - the source analysis (mostly PR) stands - David Gerard (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROMO cannot be improved through copyediting; when the entire article is promotional, there's no point in copyediting it to make it "more neutral". The subject lacks notability or significance, hence the "poetic" language employed.

I'd also like to point out that the article has been previous been deemed "neutral" but at least two changes had to me made most recently: "enhance understanding" and company claims re "1.2 mln forms". Here's more:

• In November 2011, Kampyle had more than 45,000 companies using Kampyle's feedback forms and analytics reporting.^[1]

More claims by the company that cannot be meaningfully verified since the company is private. This comes directly from the corporate blurb, apparently via a redressed press release at the Internet Retailer link provided:

• About Kampyle: Kampyle has pioneered the field of online feedback analytics, delivering websites, online retailers and companies a powerful software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform to collect, analyze, measure and manage online user feedback on services, products and customer experiences. Founded in 2007, Kampyle has processed more than 12 million feedback forms in over 60 languages, and amassed more than 45,000 customers in 191 countries.

As David Gerard says, there will be nothing left when such content is removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is weak on useful content and heavy on PR, but the company doesn't seem to fail WP:CORP. FalconK (talk) 04:55, 5 October 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.