Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand.com


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Brand.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. It looks like there are a lot of references but several of them are press releases. Some of them aren't even about the company at all and are about the practice of reputation management. The ones that are left are about the purchase of the brand.com domain -- which isn't something that makes the company merit an entry in an encyclopedia. The account is pretty close to an SPA too. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:CORP per in-depth coverage in Quartz, bizjournals, technical.ly, and techchrunch. Some of other references are of no use for determining notability, but I think these ones are solid. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per SmartSE... and also for some off-the-policy practical reasons. While I'm not sure which account CKY is calling an SPA, there were pretty clearly several involved that were working on the behalf of the company. That this company that specialized in online reputation control and even specifically advertised their ability to control your Wikipedia page were unable to even control their own Wikipedia page (thanks to the diligent efforts of several non-SPA editors) makes it a nice head-on-a-pike to keep in place. (But that just moves it for me from a "weak keep" to a "keep".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether the article was created by an SPA or not is immaterial for this discussion. I think the nom should focus on the merits whether it is notable or not. If it is heavily promotional then a rewrite to tone it down should be the next thing and if this can't rescue the article then WP:KIBOSH can be employed here. Tushi  Talk To Me  17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as not only are the listed sources simply republished PR with the blatant noticeable parts of the company's own words, but that's what I found myself, hence there's literally nothing else open to compromising, especially considering this current article itself has nothing but said PR and republished PR. Case closed if that's all this company got in its 6 years of life. SwisterTwister   talk  05:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain your rationale further? I don't understand why you think there is only rehashed PR available. Quartz were very scetical of their claims, arctechnica explain how they created fake news articles and technical.ly discuss how their links were penalised by google and detail the company's bankruptcy. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For one, the BizJournals can never be taken seriously as they literally republish whatever the company itself wants and the same can also be said for TechCrunch (we have established consensus for not allowing BJ and TC as notability sources here at AfD), even then the one other listed source is then trivial and unconvincing, none of this amounts to substance. Therefore, republishing the company's own advertisements as shown in the BizJournals and TechCrunch shows it's certainly not independent nor should we mistake it as such. SwisterTwister   talk  19:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmartSE and the sources mentioned. SwisterTwister advances the argument that an article including sources harshly critical of the company is "republished PR". That assessment is, to put it charitably, stunningly lacking in logic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources as shown on this AFD and on the article currently. Waiting with interest for the response from  to explain their reasoning.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:33, 5 November 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.