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. While this on a pure nose count could plausibly be a "no consensus", I note the discrepancy between the support for the respective arguments between those arguing "keep" (in many cases, bare assertions of being notable without explanation of why), and the in-depth analyses provided by many who argued for deletion. I also did not fail to notice that many of the accounts arguing to keep are quite new. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Maropost (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. The sources in the article are insufficient, as shown below:

WP:NCORP assessment table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/325640162/maropost-marketing-cloud-announces-integration-with-interact This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.retaildive.com/press-release/20190224-maropost-launches-maropost-for-commerce/ This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-signs-email-marketing-partnership-with-digioh/00215281/ This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-forms-partnership-with-hawke-media-hawke-media-ceo-erik-huberman-excited-to-leverage-maroposts-simplified-automation-platform/00214079/ This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-forms-partnership-with-foundr-the-worlds-go-to-learning-resource-for-leading-businesses/00216201/ This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://martechseries.com/sales-marketing/customer-experience-management/maropost-announces-partnership-and-advanced-integration-with-konnektive-crm/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release This is a PR blog Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://betakit.com/maropost-acquires-australias-retail-express-in-50-million-cad-deal/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/retail-express-acquired-maropost-55-million-deal/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://betakit.com/maropost-acquires-swedish-ai-startup-findify-for-over-4-45-million-usd/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.prunderground.com/email-marketing-automation-the-ultimate-growth-tool-from-maropost-and-getuwired/00248870/ This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/entrepreneurs/this-canadian-entrepreneur-brings-the-next-big-thing-in-the/367478 ? This reads like a PR blogpost This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor This does cover the company fairly broadly ✘ No https://finance.yahoo.com/news/maropost-named-high-performer-g2s-130000764.html This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/fast500-apply.html Deloitte is plausibly independent of this company Deloitte is probably reliable in this space Per WP:ORGDEPTH, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists is trivial coverage ✘ No https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0363-9_20 This is a book from an academic publisher This is a book from an academic publisher This does not mention Maropost at all and was published 11 years before the company was founded. ✘ No https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2019/10/01/1923386/0/en/Maropost-named-a-G2-Leader-in-Marketing-Automation-and-Personalization-Software.html This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I am likewise unable to find multiple sources that describe this company in-depth from independent reliable secondary sources. As such, I believe that this article should be deleted for failure to meet the relevant notable criteria at WP:NCORP in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, India, and Canada. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page has the minimum level of notable sources to pass GNG and remain in Wikipedia --Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable company and appears to be sufficiently covered to meet WP:GNG. --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nom. This is a for-profit corporation. Per WP:NCORP, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. As such, for-profit companies are not evaluated by GNG, but instead by the higher sourcing standards for notability. I'd ask those who claim that this passes a particular notability standard to explicitly state the sources they believe get the company over the hump so that others can evaluate their reasoning; I've already analyzed the sources in the article above and I don't really see any specific pushback against that analysis either based on contesting it directly or finding sources not mentioned in it that contribute towards the company's notability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep -- The article needs some work and more sources, but the company is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 不和の林檎 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide sources that you believe show that this meets WP:NCORP? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' I didn't find any reliable source which makes it notable.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG at least. I've added several reliable sources (launch of da vinci platform -MartechSeries and a Bloomberg article) and a line about Maropost Ventures (sources are with passing mentions but it's enough to mention a venture arm of the company). Assirian cat (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just added a good source to Foundr.com. I think the subject has enough highligting in RS for being kept on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsans2 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a lot of new editors not considering the source table put together by the nominator and contradicting his assessment without offering any concrete examples of sources they believe estabish notability. Just stating "passes/meets GNG" without providing any examples that establish notability is not a helpful contribution to a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment lean delete per nom's source assessment. Some additional sources have been added since then, but they don't appear to be substantive.-KH-1 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per revised source analysis below.-KH-1 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment thanks for relisting the discussion, which is quite okay, I would say. For instance, this newly added Bloomberg [1] source is a good one in establishing the subject's notability. Tsans2 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards Keep though many of the sources within the article fail the criteria of NCORP being either based entirely on funding announcements or connected to the company (failing WP:ORGIND). But, several sources might meet the strict criteria (I've already added some into the article). For instance, the first is the article commenting on Forrester Research annual B2B Summit (November 2021), where Forrester analyzed marketing automation technologies needed for emerging companies and included Maropost with its competitors (Thryv, Act-On, Keap in its session “How To Integrate The Six Most Essential Technologies At An Emerging Company”. The second is Forrester Research report (2016) “When To Choose A Niche Email Vendor Continuous Improvement: The Email Marketing Playbook” where Maropost was covered [2].
  Analyst reports were specifically mentioned by me, as they are meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Getlatka SaaS database estimates Maropost to have a $1.7B valuation (supposedly based on its own metrics like Forbes/Inc. does). And Bootstrappers says the same [3] As such and together with the other press coverage there are sufficient references and the topic passes WP:GNG/WP:NCORP Loewstisch (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect to the claim that valuation makes a company notable per se, WP:ORGSIG notes that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. Notability for corporations need to be demonstrated by significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources, not by its size or how subjectively important we think it is.

  With respect to the sources you claim provide WP:NCORP levels of coverage, please see my sourceassess table below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nom. I've compiled an updated source analysis to describe all sources in the article and in this discussion, including those that have been added after I first nominated this. The source analysis is as follows:

Updated NCORP assessment table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess)) This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT Bloomberg Bloomberg seems independent Bloomberg is reliable for business news Article subject is covered significantly The coverage is not a mere interview or quotes from a primary source. Foundr This is a marketing blog This doesn't appear to be a reputable news organization. The subject is significantly covered. The coverage is not a mere interview or quotes from a primary source. Los Angeles Business Journal Local business publication, may be a trade magazine. Local business publication, may be a trade magazine. Maropost is mentioned once, within a fragment of a sentence. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well. Startup Daily Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability maybe? Maropost is mentioned once, and it's in a fraction of a sentence. This seems to be a regurgitation of a press release. Food&Drink Business (Australia) Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability maybe? Maropost is mentioned once, and it's in a fraction of a sentence. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well. B2b SAAS Reviews Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability This appears to be a blog. Maropost is mentioned once, in a fragment of a bullet point. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well. Forrester Forrester appears to be independent of Maropost – This appears to be WP:SPS, though I'm not sure how we handle business intelligence sources. I can't read the full review. I can't read the full review. Bootstrappers Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability Does not appear to be an established WP:NEWSORG with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. sure appears that way Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage why not? Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage why not? EinNews This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release Mediapost Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability This looks like a blog why not? why not? MarTech Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability This is a blog sure why not? Retail Dive This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release PRUnderground This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release PRUnderground This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release PRUnderground This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage why not? MarTech Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability This is a blog sure why not Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage why not? smartcompany Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Seems reliable enough Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage why not? Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Seems plausibly reliable Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage. Also, this is a duplicate of a prior source. why not? PRUnderground This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release Entrepreneur This reads like a PR blogpost This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor This covers the company fairly broadly why not? Marketwired (via Yahoo! News) This is a press release (see Marketwired) This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release Deloitte Deloitte is plausibly independent of this company Deloitte is probably reliable in this space Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a list Essential Dynamic HTML fast This is an academic textbook This is an academic textbook This source does not mention Maropost at all; it appears to be included in error There is no coverage of this, so there is no secondary country Entrepreneur – This reads like a PR blogpost This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor This covers the company fairly broadly why not? Globe NewsWire This is a press release This is a press release Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage This is a press release

WP:ORGIND explicitly notes that Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability include press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials as well as any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources; arguments that such materials establish notability is contrary to firmly established community consensus and frankly should be discarded by the closer as such. And, as noted before, WP:ORGCRIT is explicit in that the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability and that sources need special considerations that are not always in play when doing a simple GNG analysis. As such, as this does not appear to pass WP:NCORP, I am still in support of deleting this article in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that this article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for corporations and organizations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categorically fails WP:ORGCRIT per the cogent source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2022 (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.