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. This discussion has been open for a month (exactly) and relisted twice, giving users ample time to !vote, yet there has been a complete absence of discussion since 14 August. This makes it highly unlikely a third relist will generate any more discussion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

SocialChorus, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

completely and utterly promotional article about a non notable company. the only sources in existence are PR pieces, passing mentions and funding announcements (ie. WP:MILL.) Praxidicae ( talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The wsj article has two sentences in total, boston globe article is not sigcov, TechCrunch articles [1] and [2] contain little to no independent commentary. Other sources are either trivial mentions, or not RS. - hako9 ( talk) 19:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I wrote the original draft of this article, following the protocol for the Afc process. I also disclosed my conflict of interest at WP:COIN and on the article talk page. I know one of the people who founded this company, though I personally have no financial stake in it nor compensation. Still, I get that this presents a COI so I've been careful to disclose that accordingly and refrain from editing this article - always leaving editing choices up to other editors. Other editors -- mostly through Afc -- reviewed it and approved it through that process. What I hope is worth considering is that for many software companies that are not publicly traded on the stock market, most of the events in the history of the company also coincide with rounds of funding. That is sort of the nature of that type of business. Acquisitions, mergers, funding round after funding round -- these are the things that are usually coupled with other events (growth in usage of the software, changing trends in the market for that particular software, etc.) that the media finds notable and worth reporting on. A mention of funds raised or companies acquired as a dry statistic is not notable as a standalone fact, but consider the reporting that is intertwined with these types of events.

• This Digiday article in 2011 reported on how the business of internet advertising at the time was changing to evolve beyond just traditional banner ads, cited this company as an example of that trend, noting that it had recently merged with another company based on that trend.
• This VentureBeat article in 2014 noted that the company raised a round of funding. It also reported on other trends that surrounded this funding. At the time companies were getting into compliance issues with the FTC because their employees were not properly disclosing when posting about their employer online (effectively, WP:COI). So, to address this, the reporter explains this new category of software by noting: "the company aims the platform at 'global employee advocacy' — that is, helping employees who are going to use social and other media anyway stay with brand-appropriate content and maintain industry compliance, such as the Federal Trade Commission requires."
• This TechCrunch article in 2018 explained that the company raised $12.5M because of what the reporter described as "rising demand" for a new category of software that focused on internal communications within companies. Context like this goes beyond a mere funding blurb and explains what is happening / what the reporter finds notable about this company at this moment in time: "The funding comes at a time when platforms like Slack, Workplace from Facebook and Microsoft Teams are getting a lot of attention for how they improve communication among staff, especially workforces that might be spread across far-flung geographies. SocialChorus is addressing a different area: getting businesses to be able to create better communication out to its staff about the company itself, for example from an organization’s HR or IT or marketing teams, not only to employees but also to contractors, franchises and others."
• This TechCrunch article in 2020 is not currently cited in the Wikipedia article, but I think unlike the prior three examples it is an example of reporting that is strictly about a round of funds raised and an ownership structure change.

Perhaps User:Kvng may be able to include their thoughts, as they happened to be involved in approving this article during the Afd process. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA ( talk) 21:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

JeffreyArthurVA Those are all press releases or press release adjacent and acquisition announcements. read WP:MILL. Praxidicae ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Improve, don't delete articles with WP:NPOV issues. COI here is readily surmoutable. WP:MILL is an essay, not policy. WP:ROUTINE is a policy and that's not what's going on here (raising millions or selling a company are more substantial). Sources are reliable and the articles have bylines so I assume they're not regurgitated press releases but will happily reevaluate if someone finds corresponding PRs. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kvng: Agree with you. Too much dismissiveness among editors here to discount sources by citing WP:MILL and even WP:ORGIND/ WP:CORPDEPTH, without offering an explanation, when pressed. Some editors, I feel, are too keen on deleting articles, of even billion-dollar m-cap cos. listed on major exchanges that comply with ORGCRIT. But in this case particularly, the nominator is right. Sources like venturebeat and digiday aren't reliable. And the coverage elsewhere is trivial. - hako9 ( talk) 22:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Venturebeat is on Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES. (Beyond my understanding why this is reliable and many other finance/business sources aren't). I'll change my !vote if any more reliable sources with significant coverage are presented. - hako9 ( talk) 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

A few notes that may be of help:

-- This article in TechCrunch should be considered original reporting by a reputable journalist. It was written by Ingrid Lunden, who is among the more noted technology reporters in the country. ( The Techmeme leaderboard - a live list of "the most influential and prolific writers in technology today" - ranks her as the 5th most-cited tech journalist when sorted by Techmeme presence, and she is a staff writer and editor, not a contributor. An interesting quirk about TechCrunch is that they do a combination of in-depth reporting as well as more minor updates, and their feature report of the day typically receives a custom illustration (as this article does), whereas other less important articles use a stock photo. If an editor deemed it worth creating a custom illustration and Ingrid did the reporting, by no means is it the gold standard of the front page of The New York Times -- but these factors should signal that it is not merely a regurgitated press release.

--Above it was mentioned that some editors are keen on deleting articles of even billion-dollar market cap companies. While in this case not publicly traded, the $100M in funds raised in July 2020, which followed $47M raised during the prior decade, suggests a valuation well above that total figure. That's not to imply that a software company should be deemed notable purely based on valuation or funds raised, but it should help clarify that it is not a fly-by-night garage company.

--There is certainly a quirk in reporting on more notable software companies, in that companies of a decent scale and notability that produce consumer-facing software get press that reports on releases of new features, major launches, consumer adoption/reactions, and such. Whereas those producing software bought by businesses tend to have journalists report more on aspects such as funds raised, mergers, and acquisitions, since most companies don't tend to talk to the media about internal software they are using / nor do journalists review or test out business software in the way they do consumer-facing software.

- JeffreyArthurVA ( talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (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.