Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuestionPro.com

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. No objection to providing content for the purpose of drafting a better article; such requests should be filed at WP:REFUND Stifle (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPro.com

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

Out of the sources in the current article, those provided on Talk, and those tracked by the company itself[1], none of them are in-depth profiles in credible independent sources. Some of them are published in established media outlets, but are blogs, columns, guest pieces or brief mentions. It's highly unlikely that a 50-person organization would be notable and the quality of sources available does not pass WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure whether this article should be judged as being about an organization or a product. While the very first version of this had it as being about the company, and while the company itself is now treating it on the talk page as though it should be about the company, it has been phrased as being about the product since the end of the original creator's edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I appreciate this article being reviewed. I have been wanting to expand this based on contributions from other editors. NatGertler, the article is about the company QuestionPro, however the company's flagship product is also named as QuestionPro, which is mentioned in the article. QuestionPro's notability can be said to be field specific. DIY research is a niche field hence most notable references of it appear on market research related websites and on websites of universities who use the software for their research. Besides this there are a few references to QuestionPro on the websites of notable newspapers / third party reviewers and noted universities. 2 references to university websites and mainstream newspaper 'Seattle times' are provided original. Here are 3 more references a known third party media site, a known market research related third party site and science daily, another third party site:

Online survey software company QuestionPro has acquired former EvoNexus company and micro survey platform RapidEngage http://finance.yahoo.com/news/online-survey-software-company-questionpro-160000862.html Survey Analytics Debuts Multiple Niche Panel Network http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news12596.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm "Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting." Unitedopinions (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As currently presented, the article is about the software, not the company. The subject sentence is "QuestionPro or QuestionPro.com[2] is online survey software that allows users to create, publish and distribute online surveys and analyze the results." The one subsection is "Features", which discusses features of the software, not features of the company. What is being analyzed (and proposed for deletion here) seems to be the idea of transforming an article about a product into an article about a company. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is notable, but the product isn't, we can always rename and do some copyediting. The outcome of an AfD discussion can be whatever we want it to be (merge, rename, delete but with a caveat that a company article can be made, etc.) However, given that it has 55 employees and is engaged in a fairly routine type of business, it seems unlikely that either the product or the company is notable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I feel the notability of QuestionPro as a software is more than that of QuestionPro as a company. Because all the university websites which talk about QuestionPro, are interested in QuestionPro the software platform, not the company. Similarly all the announcements about the software such as SurveySwipe and SurveyPocket to be used in conjunction are about being in conjunction with QuestionPro the software platform, not the company. I think if the article can be accommodated, it should be about the software, not the company. Company info could be provided as supplementary info as the developer. How could this be done. What references are invalid in this case and what new kind of references would be required? I now realize that probably some links are talking about QuestionPro the company but those are given in external links as additional info. Is the infobox template incorrect for it being a software? Thanks. Unitedopinions (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - narrowing this down to looking at it as a software product, I'm not seeing the establishment of notability, at least in the provide references. The closest we come is the NIH article, which is only a couple paragraphs worth of information. The Shoestring Venture reference is not only really just two paragraphs, and the publisher is listed as iUniverse. which means this is a self-published book. The U Of Iowa link is dead, and from the excerpt seems unlikely to show much significance anyway. So no, we're not seeing the sort of in-depth coverage from significant sources that we would want to see for a product. That isn't to say that this couldn't be recast as an article on the organization, but as others are indicating, there's not much sign of the expected level of notability there, either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2015 (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.