Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyte

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I find HighKing's contributions the most persuasive, and that a narrow consensus exists supporting them. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyte

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Catalyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up hits in user generated sources and a plethora of press releases/mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you are the creator of the article. Now, both the CNN and business insider sources but are promotional pieces thus fall under the WP:QS thus cannot be used here. The Baltimore isn’t independent of the organization thus the piece is in variance with WP:NCORP which requires that a source used should be independent of the organization. Furthermore this is an WP:ADMASQ that appears to be of no encyclopedic value, coupled with the deficiency in WP:ORGDEPTH there isn’t a plausible cause to retain it. Celestina007 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the Baltimore what isn't independent? I've looked through the links, but I am unclear on how the CNN and Business Insider articles are promotional. As the business is doing positive work, the coverage is going to be positive as well. Is that what makes it promotional? I also don't see how this is an advertisement, is it the tone? I don't want to just post this solely myself, my hope was that it would be a collaborative article that would grow as others added to it. Banjosound (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Banjosound (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some debate over whether or not the article meets WP:ORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 21:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Baltimore Business Journal articles are "courtesy of Catalyte", but the CNN, Business Insider, Inc. , Baltimore Magazine and Baltimore Sun articles all look like significant, independent coverage (though the Baltimore Sun talks about "Catalyst"). Rusalkii (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The coverage does seem soft, but that doesn't necessarily make it churnalism. Both Business Insider and Inc. provide some independent opinion and analysis. I would prefer three clearly independent refs, but when it's this close, I'll err on the side of keep. Pegnawl (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is met. There is enough content in the sources shared above and they clearly offer more than just "churnalism". NemesisAT (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this topic is about a company, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and not GNG. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. The Baltimore Sun references are unavailable but the headlines suggest they are based on company announcements. None of the remaining references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
    • CNN article is entirely based on information provided by a former student and/or the company and its executives. There is no "Independent Content" and therefore reference fails WP:ORGIND criteria.
    • Business Insider (also mentioned above by Banjosound and Pegnawl) is a puff piece on the company and/or the CEO and relies entirely on information provided during his interview. It has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
    • Biz Journals article relies entirely on a company announcement and other information provided by the company about an acquisition and raising finance. The article has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This INC reference (also mentioned above) relies entirely on an interview wit the CEO and has no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
    • Baltimore Magazine article is a profile puff piece on the company and relies entirely on an interview provided by a former student and information provided by the company and executives. Good photos in fairness but again, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
    • Business Insider reference is based entirely on an interview with the company founder, fails ORGIND
    • PR News publishes Press Releases. Fails ORGIND.
    • Technically article is based on the same announcement as the Biz Journals article above, fails ORGIND for the same reason in that there's zero "Independent Content".
    • This next Biz Journals reference is entirely based on this company announcement and repeated in this Press Release including the quotes from the CEO and CTO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This third Biz Journals reference is another puff piece based entirely on their announcement of the RetrainAmerica program, including quotes from signed-up customers. Similar article using the exact same quotes and information can be found such as at Yahoo Finance. Fails WP:ORGIND
    • The fourth Biz Journals reference is yet another puff piece also based on a company announcement in conjunction with signed-up customers and partners. And just like with the other Biz Journals articles, it contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
    • This Forbes post mentions the company in passing to say that McDonough (the topic of the article) is on the topic company's board of directors. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Having searched myself and examined the references provided, I have been unable to find *any* references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (emphasis mine). My interpretation of the "or" here is that a subject passes if it meets GNG, or it meets one of the SNGs (of which WP:NCORP is one). NemesisAT (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're going to pick and chose only those bits and pieces which you like, and you've decided to only look at WP:GNG, you still need to look at WP:NCORP. The WP:SNG section within GNG states (with added emphasis): In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. and later it says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Thank you for clarifying the basis of your !vote though, hopefully the closing admin will take note. HighKing++ 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin follows what is written in the lead section of WP:GNG, which ought to be a fair summary of the contents of that page, then my vote and argument stands. What you are suggesting directly contradicts with the lead section of GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the closing admin will be aware of recent discussions on this matter which resulted in the changes I highlighted at GNG. You can wiki-lawyer each paragraph of GNG and pick only those parts that satisfy your argument but that is against the spirit of GNG and the various SNGs. HighKing++ 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the sources already provided, there are a book source discussing the company:
  • Thompson, Clive (2019-03-26). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7352-2057-7. Jumpytoo Talk 21:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonsense. Either Jumpytoo didn't read the book or doesn't understand the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. In the chapter on "Blue-collar Coding", the author discusses how software companies are hiring from "non-traditional" groups and points out that Catalyte uses an online aptitude test to identify candidates. It then uses quotes from the CEO to explain why they do it. There's some details provided on the various ways people are tested e.g. "applicants work on math questions, puzzles, and a writing section, with the system monitoring the flow of how the test-taker work". All of the information is provided by the company. All of the information is focused on the test. There is no in-depth information on the actual company - so it fails CORPDEPTH - and there's no information that hasn't been provided by the company and/or the CEO - so it fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I read the book, how else could I know it has SIGCOV of the company? And I completely disagree with your evaluation in terms of NCORP. The fact that there are lines are from the CEO does not invalidate the entire source, there is original synthesis about how the company hiring practice may be superior (comparing their hiring method towards the culture fit method which greatly favoured men, and how the benefit of hiring employees from nontraditional fields is that you gain their broader perspective), and the content is editorially independent (author has no COI with Catalyte). Let me pose this to you, "Why would the author pick Catalyte as the example over many other companies that also do aptitude tests?" If you look at it from this lens it is fairly clear from all the sources given that the unique hiring practices gives this company its notability and justification for an article. Unless you are attempting to justify an article on "Catalyte hiring practices", which editorially makes no sense. Jumpytoo Talk 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting mentioned in a book doesn't automatically confer notability. In this particular book, the topic company is used as an example of their use of aptitude tests. The book doesn't talk about the company or provide any in-depth information on the company - CORPDEPTH requires Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Where precisely in this book does the author provide any information about the actual company or product? *All* of the information about the company's practices is provided by the CEO with the occasional summary of that information provided by the author. There's an anecdotal story about the experience of one employee who used to play the flute for a living before switching. This is not CORPDEPTH and because there is no "Independent Content" *about* the *company* it also fails WP:ORGIND. You ask why was Catalyte chosen? Who knows? The author doesn't say and nothing more can be or should be inferred. You go on to synthesise that "it is fairly clear from all the sources given that the unique hiring practices gives this company its notability and justification" - and that's nonsense. Certainly the author does not say anything approaching your synthesis and I'd go further and challenge you that Catalyte isn't unique in this regard. HighKing++ 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With appreciation for HighKing's analysis of the Business Insider and Inc articles referenced in my original vote, I'm going to concede that there is no independent analysis or opinion of the company within these articles, and change my weak keep to delete. I also agree that the book noted above doesn't seem to provide coverage that's significant or independent enough to sufficiently carry this entry. Pegnawl (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found and added a few more sources (Financial Times, Forbes, Inc., CBSNews) to the page! Banjosound (talk) 16:35, 01 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an analysis of those sources:
      • Financial Times is a piece described as a close look at how artificial intelligence will affect the human resources department — including recruitment and monitoring performance — reveals a complex picture. It mentions the topic company but relies entirely on information about the company which was provided by an individual connected with the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
      • The Forbes "sites" reference is from a "contributor" and the general practice is that these articles are not reliable and are not used for the purposes of establishing notability. Further, the author confesses that her husbands firm has invested in the topic company. Fails WP:RS.
      • The INC reference is a generic "Best of" non-notable awards and is regarded as trivial coverage, failsWP:CORPDEPTH
      • CBS News reference is a profile on a billionaire who looks for investment opportunities in areas that are typically overlooked and is on a bus tour searching for such opportunities and profiling companies that he and other venture capitalists find attractive. The topic company is profiled but all of the information is provided by the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
Clearly, the topic company has a well-oiled marketing department and promotes their unusual hiring practices for their own advantage, but none of the references to date meets *both* key sections of NCORP. WP:CORPDEPTH requires "in-depth information *on the company*" which contains WP:ORGIND "Independent Content" to include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject. That means nothing that *relies* entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, which most references to date clearly do. HighKing++ 11:51, 2 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalyte&oldid=1058368384"