Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellwether Technology Corporation


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Bellwether Technology Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

TL;DR: I believe the company only has two sources supporting its notability, one of which is local and the other of which is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly. Regardless, it is thus not notable enough to merit an article. (It should also be mentioned that some serious CoI editing has occurred with the article.)

(Disclaimer: This is my first attempt at nominating an article for deletion, so I may have easily misinterpreted the notability guidelines. If that is the case, I apologize.)

Rationale: With regards to notability, the article currently has five references (not including one I previously removed for being unrelated to the company):
 * 1) A link to a "Case Study" by Liongard, which is clearly listed under "Examples of dependant coverage" on WP:CORP as "not [being] sufficient to establish notability".
 * 2) An article in a local newspaper about the company being "named to CRN’s Managed Service Provider 500 list". It's a local source (so it is not enough to establish notability if no other sources exist, per WP:CORP), but it appears to be independent and neutral and is thus otherwise fine with regards to notability (from what I can tell, at least).
 * 3) An entry in PartnerPedia that reads straight like an advert. The banner at the website's top saying "Ready to list your company? Register Now" makes me suspect the content is also user-generated, which means it is also not an independent source.
 * 4) An entry in the CRN website itself confirming that the company was included in the newspaper's Managed Service Provider 500 list. This is great, but A. it is a primary source (assuming I've interpreted WP:PRIMARY correctly), and B. it doesn't give any additional information or claims to notability beyond what source #2 provided—and from what I understand of the "multiple sources" requirement, a source publishing an article and another source writing about the first source publishing an article would only count as one source, though I could very easily be wrong here--as I've said previously, I do not have much experience in this field.) (Also, I should mention the note underneath the table stating "Unedited data provided by vendors" gives me pause).
 * 5) An entry in a newspaper's "10 Fastest Growing IT Services Companies 2017" list, which I believe would be evidence of notability if the article wasn't blatantly promotional (the article's name itself is "On a mission to help clients excel by expertly applying and managing information technology: Bellwether Technology") and the article didn't continually refer to the company as "we" and "us", which makes me suspect the article is either pulled from a press release or written directly by the company itself. Either way, it is probably not an independent source.

Essentially, these sources show the company's article to have two usable sources currently: an award-giving website, and a paper writing about the company receiving an award from said award-giving website. This doesn't seem to be a very strong claim to notability thus far, in my opinion.

External websites:
 * Performing a search in Google Search and Google News was unhelpful; I found an article on how the company sponsored a concert in a park, but the article is primarily about the concert and only trivially discusses the company, meaning that it falls short of the significant coverage" requirement. I also found several discussing the company's founder (Poco Sloss) whilst only trivially mentioning the company, which has the same problem.
 * A search in Google Books brings up only a single paragraph in "Knowledge Potential Measurement and Uncertainty" that reads like a straight advertisement, so this is also unhelpful.

In short, the company truly has only two sources supporting its notability: a local source, and a source that is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly or not. Either way, this company does not have "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources," and thus this company should not have an article.

(Also, let's be honest here—the article wasn't created to provide neutral information about the company, the article was created to serve as a vehicle of promotion by the company. That is why a user who admitted to having worked for the company originally created the article in 2010 and maintained it for eight years straight, and why a bit over a week ago an IP address that geolocates to New Orleans (where the company is located) cleaned up the article and added bare references to two related articles (Phishing and Cyber insurance, to be specific) linking solely to the company's website. From what I can tell, this is yet another case of a company attempting to use Wikipedia as the world's largest billboard.) — TheHardestAspect&shy;OfCreatingAnAccount&shy;IsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: A WP:COI article setting out a company's wares. The nearest to a claim to notability is the company's inclusion in CRN magazine's list of service providers, but that is not inherently notable. I concur with the nominator's thorough analysis and my own searches are finding passing mentions of individuals associated with the company but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  14:54, 16 June 2020 (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.