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 redirect to Networked Insights. merging may be done by editorial process. ÷seresin 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SocialSense[edit]

SocialSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable product with few mentions in the press and no mentions in the suggested sources listed at author's talk page/sandbox article. There's really not any sourced or useful information in this article that would make this a candidate for a merge or transfer to the company's article. Flowanda | Talk 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive media coverage and strong notability - Each of the media articles cited is about SocialSense! (Networked Insights's flagship product). The sampling of citations I provided all came from major news outlets (both electronic and printed). Some of these outlets include: Forbes, Business Week, Wired Magazine, Washington Post and CNET. I deliberately stopped at 7 citations, but if needed, I can provide many more. Clearly, this is a very notable product in terms of media coverage and widespread use.--PiRSqr (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I removed the header format for the above post as it caused a problem with indexing within the page -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Media coverage does not automatically equal notability. Nor does it make a product remarkable. Indeed the artical looks more and more like an advertisment every time PiRSqr edits it. Indeed this is not even software that an individual can buy, it appears to me to be a subscription service. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this I see NONE of the news articles actually review the service; they are either regurgitated press releases or interviews given by the services CEO to publicise the service. I see nothing that yet convinces me that this service is worthy of an encyclopedic mention. As for widespread use I notice in one of the articles (all be it an older one) that only eight companies are using the service at that time. If you want to push the widespread use you will have to be able to verify it using what is probably commercially sensitive information. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note All the major media references I read, talk about this product as being notable. The articles in Forbes, Washington Post and others are not press releases. The context of all secondary news coverage is about specific functionally and the product's impact on the social networks and entire marketing industry. As far as buying the product of the shelf, I don’t think you can, my understanding is that this is a SaaS model which is identical to the one used by the SalesForce platform--PiRSqr (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles do not reference SocialSense at all. Flowanda | Talk 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I can not find the name of the software anywhere in the articles referred to above. Unless someone can come up with more to convince me this article is of note and is not just advertising puff then I will have to decide how to vote accordingly.

Correction This is not accurate [[1]],[[2]], [[3]]. All articles talk about Networked Insights's product\service. If you check out their website you can clearly see that SocialSense is the only product\service they offer. Also here is an article that is entirely dedicated to the SocialSense platform.--PiRSqr (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for your correction NOWHERE in ANY of the links you have provided us does it mention SocialSense. Not as software, a service, or a platform. The name SOCIALSENSE is never mentioned once. Until you provide accurate references showing it is of note then it fails Wikipedia's criteria for an entry. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of your correction to my correction [[4]],[[5]], [[6]]. What are these articles about? They are about a product\service develped by Networked Insights that is called SocialSense. The following article actually discuss the product and shows a screen shot of the application SocialSense.--PiRSqr (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first "article" is a press release by the company Networked Insights. The second "article" can in no way be considered an article or significant coverage. The third is an interview with the company CEO/founder. The last article you mention doesn't even say "SocialSense". It's more like an article about Networked Insights and what they've been doing. --C S (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last article you mention doesn't even say "SocialSense" I am not sure why you are not seeing the name SocialSense in the article. I just read it again and found it. Have you tried using your Browser's search function?--PiRSqr (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not of note, no accurate secondary references, unremarkable software, it simply scrapes social sites for mentions of key words. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Administrator: The criticism against this article is not driven by acceptable Wikipedia standards. It doesn't make any sense! When I edited the original SocialSense article, I made it as Spartan as possible in order to eliminate any claims of advertising. I wrote it because the product is mentioned on the company’s main article and by doing so I felt that I should provide the reader with a logical link. Today, I was told that due to insufficient references and contents the article was branded "insignificant software". So, in response, I added more contents and references, but after doing so (extensively), I am now being accused creating "advertising puff" and the actual existence of the product is now being debated.--PiRSqr (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one is persecuting you. You created an article that in my opinion and subsequently that of Flowanda | Talk is about a product which is not of any note. I am not going to go over the discussion above again, the article is nominated here for a broader discussion. When that discussion is complete then the decision will be made, usually by consensus, based on the discussion here. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & Redirect to Networked Insights. I was surprised to see that the company and its services have demonstrated notability through significant in-depth coverage in independent (non press-release reprint) reliable sources. However, the product "SocialSense" is never mentioned by name or discussed in detail or even mentioned trivially. The company and its services are notable but the product isn't. WP:PRODUCT gives very clear direction on this issue and I suggest everyone read it phrase-by-phrase a couple of times. It's not a matter of persecution, it's a matter of prior consensus about how to handle these matters being implemented. Drawn Some (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is exactly the point I am trying to make, Networked Insights services are a product\platform called SocialSense--PiRSqr (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, SocialSense isn't notable. I have sat in many a meeting about a company's services and a week later no one can even remember how they branded the package even though they can remember in detail how the service might be useful to them by saving work or reducing expenses, etc. There's a lesson in that. Nobody gives a flip about the product branding in business-to-business services like this. Drawn Some (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect If that’s the case, does it make sense to follow the WP:PRODUCT guidelines and merge this article with the company article?--PiRSqr (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be honest I hadn't read the primary article and I see the info isn't included. I'll change my redirect comment to add merge. That is exactly what WP:PRODUCT indicates. Drawn Some (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for the guidance and perfectly logical solution. This has certainly been a baptism of fire for me.--PiRSqr (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is very complicated. Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as noted above; surprisingly, the business is notable, but the product only so in the context of the business. Excuse me, I've got to go delete my Facebook now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect, There isn't much out there that talks specifically about SocialSense. The information is about the company in general. The product is not notable on its own but the information about should be expanded in the article about the company. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The bottom line is Wikipedia doesn't need two articles about the same thing. Currently, the company is synonymous with its product, and all the sames references and external links at the Networked Insights article are used in exactly the same way to source a slightly expanded article using a product name that seems to have been in use for just a few months on the company's website and blogs. It is troubling when a Google search on "SocialSense" brings up the Wikipedia articles as the first reference to this particular use of the phrase, and the Networked Insights website as the only other obvious result. Wikipedia is intended to reflect what's already out there, not help establish a name or spread the word. I won't object to a redirect, since it is what the company calls the product on its website, but I see little transferable content from the SocialSense article other than perhaps the screenshot; the additional info is either techno/corporate speak or brochure copy that provides little real information to the reader. The Network Insights article would be better served by pulling out information from the source articles to explain the company's services. Flowanda | Talk 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Help Based on the advice from several editors I added additional supporting references to the SocialSense article that shows the media’s coverage for the name SocialSense. Yesterday I discovered that they were removed because apparently, I added them as external links (which I should not have in retrospect). Can anyone show me how to incorporate one of these references correctly and I will do the rest myself. At this point, I’m afraid that if I revert the changes, this will start another editing war.--PiRSqr (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the links removed from Networked Insights? I moved the links to Talk:Networked Insights for use in sourcing and to the SocialSense article as well. Flowanda | Talk 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure how to handle all these references and it looks like each time I make a change someone else gets annoyed. I thought that I was supposed to add them to the SocialSense article in order show notoriety for the name SocialSense. I am still a bit confused as to how best incorporate them (references vs. external links). What do you recommend?--PiRSqr (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I GET IT! I just noticed your changes. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--PiRSqr (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you might think that the article has to be written or formatted a certain way as part of the review, but the AfD discussion is strictly about determining notability and improving the article to help show that. I added the external links to the SocialSense article because they were never added there (as far as I can tell, nothing was removed after the AfD was listed) and could be used to help establish notability. All the edits and suggestions I have made have been to try and improve the article, not sabotage it or your efforts, or try to get the article deleted. I encouraged you to edit the article and made suggestions, and, while direct and to-the-point, my comments here and elsewhere have been about the article and edits. Flowanda | Talk 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment regarding reference deletion was about my adding the SocialSense references to the Networked Insights article. After our group discussion, I thought that these two articles were going to be merged. So I decided to add the references to the Networked Insights article. Shortly after doing so, I discovered that Themfromspace removed them per WP:EL. So my thinking was I can’t have them in the SocialSense article because its slated for deletion and I can’t have them in the NetworkedInsights article because of WP:EL. What gives? I think I finally understand that the AfD is a discussion and that while it's going on I should try and continue to improve the article. If after the discussion it is decided to merge the two, then the references will be merged with the target.

As far as the scope of my editing, I thought that it was my responsibility to do the whole thing. Do you recommend I just provide the raw text and references and let someone else do the formatting? Does Wikipedia use specialty editors for each function (copy edit, formatting, etc)? Also, on a side note, how do I left align a section caption like “Features” in the article? (I tried inserting additional lines to push the text to the bottom, but this is was only marginally successful)--PiRSqr (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an administrator who actually makes the decision to keep, delete or extend the discussion to allow more time for participation. It may help to note that the discussion is just about meeting Wikipedia's standards only, not any kind of statements about the product, company, people, editors, etc. And it's not a final determination...some articles just need time for the sourcing needed to meet notability standards. More info is here at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Flowanda | Talk 03:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell an administrator from a regular editor? Can you chat with to the administrators directly or do they operate behind the scenes?--PiRSqr (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are just editors like you and me with an extra set of tools. They have earned the trust of the community and have been given the extra tools. They work with us all the time, you can get a complete list of all the administrators at Wikipedia:List of administrators. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (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.