Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badgeville


 * 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 keep. consensus is to keep, but it needs significant editing, which I am about to do.  DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Badgeville

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not only was my specific and exact PROD removed as part of an apparent massremoval of PRODs, but the listed concerns explicitly showing this was yet another paid advertisement by several involved accounts was not taken seriously, so I will note again that literally everything here still is in fact PR, and there's no sensible method of sugarcoating it as it's only making not only the article seem worse but the encyclopedia as well, while simultaneously damning the cleanliness of a non-advertising environment. In fact what was replaced after the PROD, was literally three PR sources listing and compiling exactly what the company wanted to advertise itself, and it's apparent because that's the only mindset advertisers have with these articles (they couldn't ever care about actually substantiating an article, if all that matters is a fluffed-puffed advertisement), and there's nothing to suggest the PR awards and specifics about this company, suggest otherwise. The only solution of actually solving these advertisements is not only to bar them from happening but also to remove these that exist from influencing others. SwisterTwister  talk  05:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Various source searches are providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America1000 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - When there's such a blatancy of paid advertising and the supplying their entire lines of supposed "news" of publishing exactly this, anyone who actually sensibly analyzes the listed sources shows it's all PR and there's nothing to sugarcoat or suggest otherwise, and that's exactly what's expected from such a new company like this and one whose business environment involves nothing but PR, especially when it comes to company advertising. No amount of supposedly numbered news can suggest anything else if it's all PR and if that's exactly why this article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Also, I deprodded the article, but it was not "mass removed". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables. North America1000 06:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - I only mention this because it is hounding and personal when a user is specifically targeted by having their PRODs removed all within minutes (as the contribs will show), including where the concerns have been genuine and specific. SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America1000 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, PC World, The 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (published by Springer Science & Business Media), TechCrunch, Billboard, VentureBeat, Gigaom, VentureBeat, Information Week'', etc. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: magniloquent nomination doesn't address the core issue for AFD, which is whether or not an article's subject meets WP:GNG, and this one does. Clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, per sources named by North America. Some of the sources providing significant coverage include Nieman Journalism Lab @ Harvard, Wall Street Journal, PC World, more WSJ, SF Gate, and Fortune. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The links above merely once again consist of its company activities and actions and then actual interviewed information and listing information that only the company would know, that's not substance and is also not independent. There are clear enough PR concerns about this, and we should not compromise by finding excuses for accepting advertisements at any costs. SwisterTwister   talk  00:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be helpful for you to provide an example of coverage of a business that you don't think is PR or advertising. Otherwise, it seems that you might find all coverage of businesses in any publication to be PR, and that doesn't seem to tier with our current WP:RS policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 and Safehaven86. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing notability of the company.  Editorial concerns about promotional content are better dealt with by editing the article rather than deleting it.  Edgeweyes (talk) 18:50, 12 October 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.