Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lead Forensics

:{{la|Lead Forensics}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lead_Forensics Stats])

:({{Find sources|Lead Forensics}})

I am very confident that this article was created by a skilled paid editor/wiki-manipulator (reminiscent of Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia). Despite their skill though, they have not been able to completely camouflage the fact that this company is non-notable. The references look good at first glance, but turn out to be quite poor. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Two years ago this article was created and quickly speedy deleted for being spam and {{user|Lead Forensics}} was blocked for spamming, they appear to have brought on professionals since then. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: After reading the rules on this I feel that the company is notable. They received coverage in Forbes, The Sunday Times and Marketing Week which is evidence of attention by international media and shows a reasonable depth of coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwrite465 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

::The only mention of the company in the Forbes article is a single sentance in passing:

{{Quotation|EnVistar tested Relead and other sites seeking to generate more targeted leads including www.visualvisitor.com, www.leadformix.com, www.leadlander.com, www.leadforensics.com, www.loopfuse.com and www.activeconversion.com.}}

::The only mention of the company in the Marketing Week article is a single sentence in passing:

{{Quotation|At the moment we’re using a package from Lead Forensics that enables us to call people who haven’t converted but have shown a great deal of interest.}}

::And I can't find the article in The Sunday Times. The citation given goes to a blog post that does not mention The Sunday Times. To count for notability coverage must be non trivial (WP:GNG). Antrocent (♫♬) 13:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: More content found to be considered, along with some of the existing content. The B2B Marketing Tech review is one reference that completely covers Lead Forensics and seems to be a notable marketing magazine in the UK. I've also noticed the following link http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2013/06/18/adapting-to-a-responsive-design-case-study/, which currently doesn't feature on the article even though it is referred to.

Lead Forensics has also ranked 3 years running as the top 100 companies in the UK to work for by the Sunday Times. Iwrite465 (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Additional Comment: After looking over the page again and also Googling the company I've found more interesting coverage. This includes an online review from Doug Richards of UK's Dragons' Den [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G5e66vKn38 here]. There is also an article on School for Startups [http://www.schoolforstartups.co.uk/lead-forensics-converting-clicks-to-leads-247/ here] and what seems like an independent review from the IT company Amicitia [http://www.amicitia.com/2014/07/getting-website-lead-forensics/ here]. Iwrite465 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::You omit that the "online review" is based on the company's youtube channel, so it's not independent. What makes schoolforstartups.co.uk or Amicitia reliable sources? The first one looks like a blog, and the second is a company website rather than an edited publication. 109.79.81.156 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• delete as spam. In what way is this minor SEO and lead tracking company an encyclopedic topic? There is no technical significance here. There is enough footprint to include them in a business directory, but we aren't one of those, were an encyclopedia.

: Also theyre described as "a cloud computing company" in the first lead sentence. They aren't. Amazon, Google and others provide cloud services, this lot don't. Viam Ferream (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:: They are also email spammers. One "Danielle.Jones@lead-forensics.com" (if they exist) is sending out "Hi Mr , I hope you are well and business is booming at " spams. Anyone else at this AfD had one yet? Or is it just the usual spammer scatter-gun? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't seen this company on any of the references referred to as an SEO organisation. If the initial sentence needs changing I don't see that as a reason for deletion. What about all the references and awards? I'm quite concerned by the hostility shown, the IP comment and Viam comment, as they seem to come from new users. You can see their contributions here and here. Both of which seem to have made a number of random edits with their comments on this article sandwiched in the middle. Personally I find it strange that two new editors would take an interest in this discussion on the same day they registered? Iwrite465 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:: "New editors" ? As against an editor whose only edit is to create a new article on their first edit, then to argue against its deletion? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

:: Comment: I created the article and then I've had to come here and discuss it, I think any editor would understand me defending an article I've created. My concern is that two editors within hours of their first edit, begin posting on a deletion discussion and are quoting fairly advanced rules and regulations. To me it looks like they've both done this before and I find that a concern. Iwrite465 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, it is an advert. Spumuq (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. No evidence of notability in the first several pages of Google search results. Just their own site, twitter, LinkedIn, and a host of minor blogs devoted to internet marketing. Not to mention is reads like advertising. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete- no evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 04:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

: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.