Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digipas Usa
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Digipas Usa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This didn't even pass AfC but was moved to the mainspace by the original author. In any case, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources discussing the company in detail seem to be mostly WP:SPS. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I would disagree that most of the sources are self published, I see a few that look to be broad coverage of events such as CES in which the company was featured, and others where people from the company are interviewed about something. One thing I would say is that few if any of the major sources are actually specifically about the company, and just mention or feature it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have specified that sources which mention the company and talk about it in a bit of detail are self published sources (tech blogs). I have amended it accordingly in this edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
- Keep
Keepper GNG and NCORP. See my version updated of the article for comparison to current.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- (How I arrive at this AfD)I guess I accidentally goofed up a TW concerning this AfD, sorry, looks like that has been fixed. Brings to my attention to the article itself and that the subject is notable. A substantive topic of the FOX News article, the main topic of Daily Mail article, the main topic of the Mashable article. The seven months of declines in AfC were likely because the topic is a corporation. COI is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON and there is nothing in the guidelines requiring that the article go through AfC.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- You amended your !vote here to include a link to a draft in your userspace (not the original draft). That draft has the same fraudulent references and claims as the original draft. I am not going to point them out for the third time now (you also restored some of them after I removed them from this article) If you wish to un-amend your !vote to remove the link to a draft with fraudulent content I will not object to this comment being hatted. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- There, I updated my vote. Yes, there was a reference that didn't support an inconsequential passage, after 5 months in AfC, I wouldn't describe it as fraud. I went through everything, corrected a few of your mistakes and found a couple of new supporting references.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- yes now you changed it a second time. The fraudulent stuff from the original draft is still in that draft as of the time of this comment. you remain remarkably unconcerned about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- There, I updated my vote. Yes, there was a reference that didn't support an inconsequential passage, after 5 months in AfC, I wouldn't describe it as fraud. I went through everything, corrected a few of your mistakes and found a couple of new supporting references.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- You amended your !vote here to include a link to a draft in your userspace (not the original draft). That draft has the same fraudulent references and claims as the original draft. I am not going to point them out for the third time now (you also restored some of them after I removed them from this article) If you wish to un-amend your !vote to remove the link to a draft with fraudulent content I will not object to this comment being hatted. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Daily Mail has a 138 world ranking on Alexis, Mashable is 376 in the world, both authors appear to staff writers. Wikipedia now allows sources like Southern Poverty Law Center and MediaMatters in BLPs, both of which are advocacy groups so I'm not worried about The Daily Mail or Mashable for non-controversial topics. We have these news articles connecting the company to the product [1][2][3] [4][5] and dozens of more articles about the product alone. Per WP:PRODUCT the product belongs in an article about the company. Notability is based upon sustained coverage, but as the moving party, feel free to ask about Daily Mail and Mashable in this context at RSN.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|
- Comment While the company's products may meet notability guidelines, the company itself does not.
- Delete This article was declined as a draft numerous times by numerous reviewers. Once conflict of interest concerns were pointed out, the creator of this article removed those comments and promoted the article into the main space themselve. The problems which were noted in AfC remain, lack of depth in coverage. This is an agressive attempt by an employee of this company to promote it via Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
more commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete. The tone f the article is largely promotional. The good references revolve around a luggage lock. Does Wikipedia need a whole page describing a luggage lock company? I'm thinking it does not.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- This article had some fraud in it (sources that didn't support the content, at all) and most of it was about the new product. In this series of edits I wrote it to be about the company, condensed content about the new product. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete actually there aren't enough independent sources about the company to meet GNG. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
yet more commentaryJytdog (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment Gee, I though only un-involved editors could hat conversations per WP:TPO. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability, clearly nothing acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - All that I'm seeing in terms of reliable sourcing is that one of this company's products is rather useful and recommended. That appears to be it; the firm itself isn't notable. Even calling the product itself notable is at least a bit of a leap. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - many of the issues which prevented it from being accepted through the AfC process still remain. Which is most likely why the editor who moved it to mainspace decided to circumvent that process. Searches show it fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 16 May 2016 (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.