Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KumoSpace: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:33, 11 August 2023

KumoSpace

[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)

This does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and is written like an advertisement- most of 'Workflow' section should be removed, and most of 'History' is PR speak, which leaves very little for an article. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.

There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.

There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.

My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 Andre🚐 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Keep''' - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far:  https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 ::"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet [[WP:ORGCRIT]]? --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - [[User:Indefensible|Indefensible]] ([[User talk:Indefensible|talk]]) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)