Talk:Icertis

Infobox Edit Request

Hello Wikipedians! I'm an employee at Icertis and am requesting edits to this page as part of my job. This obviously gives me a conflict of interest, so I'm disclosing my COI up front (you can read a fuller disclosure on my user page). I promise not to edit the page directly and to do my best to follow all of Wikipedia's content guidelines.

With that said, I have some ideas for improving the infobox on this page. They are as follows:

1. Improve sourcing for Foundation date, with this new source:
2. Update the employee number from 1,500+ to 1,7000, with this new source:
3. Delete the No. of locations line. The company opens new offices and closes old ones with some regularity, and the total number of offices in operation at any given time is almost never reported on by secondary sources. Having no number at all beats having an inaccurate one.
4. Add new, better sources for several members of the Key people section and remove the stray sources at the bottom of that section: Samir Bodas (co-founder & CEO), Monish Darda (co-founder & CTO), Neal Singh (COO), Curt Anderson (CFO), Gretchen Eischen (CMO), and Pranali Save (CHRO).

If someone could help me with these edits, or has any suggestions as to how they could be improved, please let me know. Thanks! Icertis Laura (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lovely! Just a heads up, user:Heartmusic678: I'm working on some more significant improvements to this page and will be proposing them in the near future. If you're game to review those requests, great, and if not, thank you very much for your help on these fixes. Cheers! Icertis Laura (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Icertis Laura: Sure, feel free to ping me on future requests, and also open them to anyone who is available to edit. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Technology Section Edit Request

Hello again! I'm back with some more substantial updates to the page, this time in the form of a Technology section that describes some of the company's more notable products and their applications. I've made an effort not to simply list everything that the company has developed, focusing only on technology that has received significant media coverage.

I've uploaded a draft of this Technology section to my user pages here: User:Icertis_Laura/Icertis_Technology_section so that editors can review it easily. I'll ping user:Heartmusic678 here because they were so helpful with getting the infobox updates done, but if any other editors would like to jump in and take a look at my draft, that's fine too. Thank you! Icertis Laura (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Icertis Laura: I looked over your draft and made minor suggestions to the earlier part of it, based on my research of a few good company articles: Qapital, Tesla and Bridgewater Associates. Please review below and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, user:Heartmusic678! Thanks for reviewing. I think your tweaks are reasonable and I really appreciate you making the effort to bring the content in line with similar company articles. I realize I didn't mention this in my initial post, but my intention was to have this Technology section to replace the current Products one, which covers some of the same ground but is in bad shape from a sourcing and content standpoint. If that sounds good to you, then I'm fine with you posting this new section to the page in its edited form. Icertis Laura (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Icertis Laura: Any time. The updates have been made. Heartmusic678 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Just FYI: I have posted a new History section draft below, if you would like to take a look. Icertis Laura (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Icertis provides cloud-based software intended to digitize, organize, and centralize business contracts. The software is licensed to companies through the software-as-a-service model. The company's flagship product, Icertis Contract Intelligence, is a contract lifecycle management platform. It allows a company to digitize and store all of its contracts in the cloud. The platform utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) technology to identify problematic contract clauses and flag potential compliance issues. Its machine learning capabilities can read contracts and offer insight about what its terms might mean for a company's finances. It can also aid in quickly drafting new contracts.

History Section Edit Request

Hello again! I've returned with a new section draft, this time for the company's 'History, which is currently a single sentence. My proposed version of that section is several paragraphs long, so I uploaded it to my user page here: User:Icertis_Laura/Icertis_History_section. As with the Technology section, I tried to moderate my tone and focus on aspects of the company's history that received significant media coverage.

Any editor help I can get, whether it's draft approval or constructive criticism, would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Icertis Laura (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done PK650 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Funding Section And Tag Removal Request

Hello! First, I should say that I mistakenly posted a version of this edit request to my own user page instead of this article's Talk page. Sorry about that. Here's a link to that post, which I will leave up for the sake of transparency.

Moving on, I'll restate my request: user:Hipal has added a tag to the page that says it's "written like an advertisement." While I agree that the page isn't in ideal shape, I have been trying for the past couple months to improve it by proposing content that uses secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. For reference, here's a link to what the page looked like before I started placing edit requests. I have a conflict of interest, so I know there's a degree of skepticism around my proposals, but, as you can see above, user: Heartmusic678 has approved my infobox and History requests and user: PK650 has approved my Technology request. I would like to see the tag on this page removed, given that editors seem to think it's headed in the right direction, but I understand if there are parts that are still problematic.

I see that user:Hipal responded to the post I mistakenly made on my user page, informing me that: "In general, if you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. Use of your company's own press can be problematic." While that's helpful guidance, I would like to point out that I have made sure not to use company sources in my edit requests. The infobox updates, History section, and Technology section are all sourced from independent journalistic outlets, as I'm aware that Wikipedia doesn't accept things like press releases and interviews with company employees.

Lastly, to further improve the page, I wanted to suggest the removal of the Funding section. It's not terribly substantial, as it's primarily a list of funding rounds and investors, the most notable of which are now covered by the History section. Additionally, the Funding section does cite press releases, which Hipal pointed out is not ideal. If any editors agree with that assessment, could they please delete Funding? And if anyone has feedback or thoughts on my concerns about the tag, feel free to reach out. Apologies again for the posting mix-up, but I hope I've clarified everything here. Thank you! Icertis Laura (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My full response was [1], "In general, if you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. Use of your company's own press can be problematic. You may want to look at WP:GA and WP:FA articles for companies like your own to get a feel for what information is and is not included in such articles and how that information is referenced." --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, user:Hipal, thank you for adding your full comment here. I appreciate your suggestion to look at similar companies' articles. This is something that I did prior to making my drafts and I can look at these examples some more. Are there any specific phrases or details that stood out as promotional in the current article?

User:Heartmusic678 or User:PK650: I'm keen to have you look at this again, too, in case there's any suggestions you'd make or notes you have from reviewing my requests above.

Also, leaving aside the question of the tags for the moment, would editors be in favor of removing the Funding section since its content definitely doesn't seem appropriate? Icertis Laura (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've gone ahead and removed the Funding section. If there's anything noteworthy about their funding, it should be mentioned. I skimmed through the references and found just basic coverage of where the company was at the time. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) (emphasis added to highlight the RECENTISM and NOT problems --Hipal (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC))

Hi, user:Hipal, thanks very much for removing the Funding section. I'll keep your feedback in mind going forward. Icertis Laura (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly, the changes you originally suggested have been implemented / discussed. I will be closing this COIREQ; if you have further suggestions, please open a new one (and optionally ping me so I see it). Actualcpscm (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Operations Section Edit Request

Hello! I'm back to propose a short Operations section, which is meant to provide some high-level information on the company's size, ownership, and leadership structure. Since it's only one paragraph, I will post the text and references in full here:

Icertis is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington The company has additional offices in North America, as well as in India and Europe. Its co-founders, Samir Bodas and Monish Darda, operate as CEO and CTO, respectively. Icertis is a privately owned, venture capital-funded company with minority stakes held by Softbank and SAP. As of December 2021, it employed approximately 1,700 people.

References

I would appreciate if an editor or two could give this a review and, if they think it's up to Wikipedia's content standards, post it to the page. I'm also open to feedback, if anyone believes that this draft can be significantly improved. Thanks! Icertis Laura (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey again! I've corrected the formatting on the Operations edit request above, as I realized it was kind of a mess and might have been confusing for editors. Now that I've fixed that up, I wanted to ask user:PK650 if they would be interested in reviewing the request? No worries if not, but you helped out with the History section and, since I'm a little bit stuck here, I thought I would ask. Thank you! Icertis Laura (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I trimmed some of the excessive referencing, but implemented it. PK650 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, user:PK650. And sorry for being a touch overzealous with those references. One small thing: I noticed that the end of the first sentence of the Operations section is missing a period. Would you mind correcting that? I also have a request below where I'm suggesting a few small fixes to the intro, if that interests you. Again, I really appreciate the help. Cheers! Icertis Laura (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that typo user:PK650. Did you happen to spot my Introduction request below? If it's not something you're interested in, I can reach out to see if anyone else can help with that request. Thanks! Icertis Laura (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction Update Edit Request

Hello! I thought I would propose an improved introduction that reflects the newly up-to-date information that's contained in the body of the article. Some of the stuff in the current intro is no longer accurate. Here's my suggested framing:

Icertis is a privately owned software company that provides contract management software to enterprise businesses using a software-as-a-service model. The company, which was founded in 2009, is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. It also has additional offices in North America, India, and Europe.

References

If a non-COI editor could review that language and post it to the page, I would really appreciate it. Of course, I happily welcome any feedback editors might have too. Thanks! Icertis Laura (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done PK650 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's terrific. Thanks very much for your help, user: PK650! I've posted a new request below, where I'm asking for the written like an advertisement tag to be removed from the article. If you don't want to weigh in on that, I understand, but given that you've approved a couple edits for this page, I thought I'd point it out. Cheers! Icertis Laura (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Returning to Tag Removal Issue

Hello! First, I want to say thank you to every editor who has fielded my edit requests and helped improve this page. It's in much, much better shape than it was several months ago. With all that work now completed, I would like to see if the written like an advertisement tag can be removed from the top of the page. I am obviously not in a position to make that judgment, because I have a COI, but given that all of the content on the current version of the page has been reviewed and implemented by neutral editors, I think it’s fair to say that the article is aligned with Wikipedia’s content guidelines and no longer merits a tag. Again, however, I will leave that for non-COI editors to discuss and decide. Thanks again! Icertis Laura (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The extremely heavy usage of the Business Insider India reference is an indication that there is still a problem. That reference is simply a warmed-over press release. At a glance, there are many such references. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, user: Hipal. I would offer that the BI India reference is used only to confirm the company's founding date, the location of some of its offices, and a basic description of what its software does. And there are obviously 33 other sources behind the article. But I respect your opinion. I do want to ask two other editors, user:PK650 and user:TeaEarlGreyVeryHot, for their take on the article, given that the former has approved a few edit requests and the latter recently assessed the article for the Companies Wikiproject. I'll pause here and wait to see if they have any thoughts. Cheers! Icertis Laura (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote, At a glance, there are many such references. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read the article and I don't see a WP:PROMO problem. The worst I found was claims of multinational customers which is supported by several references. I have removed the tag. Hipal is complaining about a sourcing problem. I don't really see a sourcing problem either. There are some low-quality sources but there are also good ones too. Somoeone may want to go through and thin out the sources but improving articles that have too many sources isn't a high priority for most editors. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying that there are no poor and promotional sources?

If you'll look over the article history, I think you'll see heavy SPA (likely UPE), extremely promotional content, and very poor sources. While we're making headway, I don't think we're close to having resolved those problems. --Hipal (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag because the article text does not read as promotional. This is the first time I've seen an argument claiming WP:PROMO based on the references. I'm also not sure how much we should be taking article history into account when making this assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. "Promotional" doesn't just mean coming across as promotional, it means written from the perspective of promotional based upon poor and promotional references, often with the actual intent to promote rather than create encyclopedic content. The latter is the case here. The solution is to ensure the article is solidly based upon clearly independent sources that demonstrate encyclopedic value. No one has done that, and I agree with you that it isn't a high priority for most editors, other than those being incentivized by Icertis, directly or indirectly. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal I'm afraid I'm unable to map what you have said here to what I read at WP:PROMO. Your position seems to be that if an article started out with promotional material or intent, there's really no way to fix it properly without starting over. ~Kvng (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not my position in any way. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so what's the justification for leaving the tag in place at this point? Can you identify specific text that you consider to be promotional? ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, all content that's verified only with the poor or promotional references. --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Utuado:, who added the tag initially.

Looking closer, the COI problems look out of control. I've listed two accounts that use the names of employees. I'm also seeing many WP:SPA accounts and likely WP:UPE editors. I hope that Icertis Laura can shed light on what's been going on. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Strikeout what can be interpreted to be an aspersion on unidentified editors, and "many". --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC))

Hello, User:Hipal. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Having looked into it, User:Aseto2 and User:AlyseNoel.Hicks were Icertis interns when they edited the page. I don't believe either of them were officially tasked to edit the page, and it appears they did not know the site's guidelines. I'll make sure for the future that communications interns are aware they should not be editing Wikipedia. I've only been involved with seeking to update Wikipedia for Icertis since earlier this year, and I don't know if any past editors were hired by Icertis. When my team decided to approach Wikipedia this year, we wanted to do it the right way and follow all the guidelines. Before I set up my account, I learned about the Terms of Use and guidelines. That's why I have been on this Talk page, disclosing my COI and making edit requests for non-COI editors to review and implement. I'm the only person on Wikipedia officially on behalf of Icertis.

My goal has been to try to fix the issues on the page, including any caused by Icertis' missteps in the past. Virtually all of the content that's on the Icertis page right now has been approved by you, User:Heartmusic678, User:PK650, and/or User:Kvng. A handful of other editors have stepped in to make small formatting changes. As far as I know, all of these editors are independent and have no connection to Icertis. I assure you that I have been acting in good faith and trying to improve the page while following Wikipedia's COI rules to the letter. My aim has been to make this page more encyclopedic. If any of my drafts fell short in that regard, I hope editors can share feedback so I can help to remedy the issues.

I'm aware that you find some of the page's current sourcing insufficient and I would like to help with that. If you can tell me which sources are not appropriate (I'm already looking into replacement sourcing for the Business Insider piece), I'd like the opportunity to see if I can find alternative sourcing or suggest other solutions. Icertis Laura (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't extensively looked at the article's history, my role here mainly having been to assess a few COI requests as posed by the above editor. I think whenever editors adhere to Wikipedia's TOS (in this instance by requesting an edit be made when a COI has been declared in good faith) and proper process, we should be encouraging such behavior. If an editor has evidence of sockpuppetry they should go through the appropriate process, as veiled accusations serve nobody. I will continue to encourage and assist editors with conflicts of interest to pursue this valuable path. I've seen many an inexperienced editor meddle with requests, and understanding it's rather niche, it's always good to remember Wikipedia's guiding principle of assuming good faith, while also noting that customer-interaction is a vital part of this effort. If one doesn't have the time to offer constructive feedback due to the very nature of this work, perhaps COI requests aren't an area one should be focusing on, specifically given there is no urgency around these parts. On a final note, it is an easy and rather dangerous path to be accusing somebody of suckpuppetry based off of redlink accounts that clearly were used in a different time period and probably were different employees to begin with, and there is subsequent owning of requests by what appears to be a responsible editor in charge of dealing with Wikipedia requests by that particular company. I don't think anyone would suggest that they go back to having random employees just edit the article themselves instead of requesting edits, would they? Rounding back to this specific article, I don't have an informed opinion, given what I said before about merely going through a couple of detailed requests a while back and not having time nor any particular incentive to perform an article-wide copy edit. If you feel there are specific issues related to WP:PROMO, I would suggest being clear and specific to be a good guiding principle, rather than using blanket statements. Regards, PK650 (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. I identified two, now confirmed, undeclared paid editors. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's great, congratulations! Here we need to focus on content. I have reviewed the article text and don't see an WP:ADVERT issue. Sure sourcing can be improved but I beleive there is adequate reliable sourcing and that's usually our focus in satisfying WP:V so the {{Third party}} tag is also not needed. The {{COI}} tag is intended to be used to alert other editors that discussion is necessary. We're having that discussion. Once we're finished, that should be removed too. @Hipal, we need some clear and specific complaints about the content of this article. Which sentences, which references are promotional? ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The sarcasm is not appreciated and is disruptive.

I don't agree with your assessment of what the situation is or how to move forward. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. Sock puppetry is a serious issue. I understand that we disagree, but that doesn't mean we have a consensus to do it your way. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpupptery? Howso? We seem to be going in circles. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we are ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Thinker78 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What funding information is actually encyclopedic?

Are there any references that go beyond a corporate announcement that should be kept? Is there any general consensus that applies suggesting that some of the information should be retained regardless? --Hipal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The article probably needs a total rewrite. We can move it to draft space or stub it if editors are not interested in working on writing it for the necessary. --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed all the funding information. I'm not seeing much in the way of references that provide encyclopedic context. The amount of the last round may be DUE. If there are references that clearly are more than PROMO and NOTNEWS, please point them out. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, User:Hipal. I see your discussion above with User:Kvng hasn't reached a satisfying conclusion, so I'm going to tag them in here. I have tried to stay out of the back-and-forth among independent editors, since I have my obvious biases, but I don't think it's fair that you've decided to delete almost the entire History section without input from anyone else, while another editor was in the middle of trying to engage you.

I would like to have a more granular discussion about how that section's sourcing can be improved, and what should be kept in it, rather than just chucking the whole thing. I did some research on software companies that are somewhat similar to Icertis, to compare how they treat funding information, in case that may help. For example: Asana, Monday.com, and Aryaka. In all three of these, the History sections were also built largely out of coverage generated by funding announcements, so it doesn't seem like there's a clear prerogative to completely avoid this type of detail. Is there a compromise we can reach where some of the detail is included?

In the several History paragraphs you excised, there were references from sizable journalistic outlets like the Seattle Times and TechCrunch. Are even those articles not useful? I'm genuinely trying to understand where your bar is for sourcing, so that I can try to clear it. You also mentioned that the latest funding round should be included but seem to have removed that. Could the first step be adding that back? Icertis Laura (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I explained and made some suggestions when removing the material: SOAP, NOTNEWS - using this article for public relations campaign - if there's a summarizing ref, it's not easy to find - some of this may be noteworthy and worth mention especially the amount of the last round

The bar is for sources that aren't for information that's not encyclopedic. --Hipal (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal, there was nothing in that section that is not typically found in other start or C class company articles. You seemed to agree with this assessment by saying that the problem was actually in the sources. So I have more carefully reviewed the sources in the History section before you chopped it. None of the sources has been previously flagged as unreliable. All but one of the stories have bylines so there's not an obvious WP:PRSOURCE issue. If the writeups are glowing, so be it, it isn't a WP:PROMO issue for the article if the investment community is swooning over a company. I request the material be restored and then improved as necessary from there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We continue to disagree. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't just be disagreeable. You need to justify your position with something more substantial than your own personal judgement. Should we seek help from WP:3O or WP:RFC? ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe COIN , and bring up your history with such problems? (strikeout: escalation --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC))

I'm not being just disagreeable. Please strike out. --Hipal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you've not offered a constructive suggestion, I'll start with WP:3O. Sorry if you you took my statement as a personal attack. It was not intended as such. My point is it is unacceptable to remain mired in disagreement. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you don't find my suggestions constructive. --Hipal (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Kvng, could you please strike out below where you wrote without input from anyone else? This section addresses exactly that, and you'll note I waited a full week for an answer to my questions (with no response) before removing the content. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The DRN attempt has been closed. I've started a discussion at COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Icertis. I'll follow up at NPOVN if we're still having trouble. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion

The disagreement is between myself and Hipal. Icertis Laura is sidelined due to WP:COI but has offered the following summary of the current situation:

Hello again, User:Hipal. I see your discussion above with User:Kvng hasn't reached a satisfying conclusion, so I'm going to tag them in here. I have tried to stay out of the back-and-forth among independent editors, since I have my obvious biases, but I don't think it's fair that you've decided to delete almost the entire History section without input from anyone else, while another editor was in the middle of trying to engage you.

Hipal contends that the disputed material is somehow WP:PROMO. I'm not quite clear on the reasoning but have reviewed the content and souces and don't see a problem serious enough to merit deleting the content or even applying an {{Advert}} tag. ~Kvng (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There have been four editors involved.

Icertis Laura has been and continues to be a party. I'm unaware of any "sidelined due to a COI" exclusion.

And there's [2] and User_talk:PK650/Archives/2022/June#Talk:Icertis --Hipal (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: Are you replying to a WP:3O request? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov No, I'm trying to solicit another opinion to help resolve this dispute. I don't have a good track record of choosing the right venue for these things. Any suggestions are appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hipal doesn't think WP:3O is the right venue so I will cancel this request. Their suggestion is to post at WP:COIN. I don't know much about WP:COIN and will check it out. ~Kvng (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the involvement of four editors, 3O isn't an option.

I've started a COIN discussion. --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The coverage here is routine business news, driven from PR and press-releases that fails WP:NCORP, the article reads like an advert and I think from now the coi editors need to use edit requests. I'm still half-minded to take it to Afd having looked at it when it was posted at coin. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

How is Icertis notable?

No offense to anyone, but this is a basic question to ask when addressing the possible need for an article rewrite due to POV problems. I'm not asking if it's notable, but how.

From my reading, it's barely meets WP:CORP, and appears notable for the attention major publishers have given to Icertis' public relations about their company and products. Hipal (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal, @User:Scope creep, if you think WP:NCORP is not met here, someone should nominate it again and we'll discuss it at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't understand, or aren't reading what's written. The question is "how is it notable", not "is it notable"? --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of material

Should we include material removed by Hipal. See discussion above and edit comments for their justification for removing it. A significant portion of the material in this article was contributed by a WP:COI editor (Icertis Laura) through WP:ER and was reviewed and inserted by at least two independent editors. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this simply a vote without regard to policy? While that's been a problem all along, perpetuating it will not create a policy-based consensus. I've already said I'll take this to POVN after giving the COIN discussion time. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Related discussions:

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_220#Icertis
• User_talk:Nightenbelle#Icertis
  • [3]
• User_talk:Nightenbelle#Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Icertis
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Icertis --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What a stupid and absurd RFC, asking should content that is both promotional and abusive go back into what is already a brochure article, Kvng. The content is not going to back in. scope_creep^Talk 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) This RFC is malformed. Don't ask responders to do research. Narrow the issues and ask a clear and concise question. Suggest you start over. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude. Obviously promotional in nature and cited to obscure / low-quality sources. It makes no sense to document every funding round that every company has ever gone through, or to breathlessly track their valuation when the coverage is so low-quality and sparse. --Aquillion (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• comment Agree this is malformed- should be re-formatted and re-opened. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Response I'm afraid I don't know what to do with these comments. I've posted a simple binary question that seems clear and concise to me. I don't see how any RfC can or should be responded to without doing some research. Calling this stupid and absurd is obviously unhelpful. Please give me some actionable suggestions. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about edit summaries for deleted content

Hello again! I've been quiet for a little while, since I felt it was best to step back and let editors sort through their disagreements about this page's content. I'm not sure if those discussions have fully concluded yet, so for now I'll continue to stay back and allow editors to find consensus about the best content for the page. While that's happening, I'm following this discussion and editing process and aiming to improve my understanding of what makes a good page. I particularly want to make sure that if I make any future requests, I am offering appropriate and quality content.

On that note, I do have a small request that if material is deleted, can editors provide a couple notes in the edit summary on why that is? For example, User:Scope creep recently deleted material from the Technology section. Their note on that edit was that "talking about customers is promo." That's good for me to know, and I'll steer clear of that type of detail in future requests. However, in the same edit, they also deleted a few details about how Icertis's technology works, and there wasn't a mention of that in the edit summary so I'm unsure why that was removed. (If they're able to provide a quick note on why that was cut, that would be helpful, but I'm mainly just using this as an example of where I'm struggling.)

To reiterate, I really want to make sure that I'm contributing here appropriately and that, when I come back with future edit requests, I'm putting forward information that makes the page stronger and provides the types of details that editors are looking for. The edit summaries having clear notes is a huge help with that. Thank you! Icertis Laura (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)