Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit + Co


 * 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) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Brit + Co

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



PROD removed yet it was specific and thorough therefore it still applies, paid advertising by paid advertising users with they not adding anything else but what the company imaginably of course wanted to put as if this were their own PR and that's not surprising examining everything that is listed, as it actually goes to specifics about what the business wants to advertise. Once we succumb to advertising, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister  talk  03:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Of note is that the article creator, has declared paid editing on their user page for other articles, but they have not stated there that they were paid to create this article. As such, it is not necessarily "paid advertising" as stated in the nomination. North America1000 03:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's quite clear that he then actually stated he has worked for client agencies which therefore involve companies, and this is then also emphasized by the fact the article contains only what the company wants to advertise about itself, therefore advertising. There are absolutely no compromises that can be taken seriously for keeping any advertisements lest we be damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  03:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several significant mentions in Fortune, , , , the LA Times , and TechCrunch seems to be enough to sastify WP:CORPDEPTH. Problems with tone can be solved through editing (e.g. removing stuff sourced to the company's own pages and PR Newswire).  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sources above are still only actually PR, put aside nearly half of them (such as the second half of the list) since they only focus with what the company talks about itself of its financial and funding which also then includes its investors; the first 2 Fortune actually then go to talk about this also, and then actually listing to say how advertising has worked for the business and its current situations about it. The second article from this source then goes to actually state how the company hired a new employee for its own business and then goes to actually state the interviewed information about it, and then going as far to actually then listed its own company investors. Since PR and advertising is exactly what I stated with my nomination, citing PR sources is not actually convincing or suggestive there would be significantly better. I could literally copy and paste all of the blatant quotes from these sources but that would literally need another article-size page because it's that PR-focused. SwisterTwister   talk  04:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Shockingly, business journalism often focuses on the business finances, business funding, and who's investing in what business. If reliable sources report on them, then that goes towards meeting our notability guidelines. If the first two Fortune pieces are talking about how the company's successful advertising ventures, that's even more significant coverage than a run-of-the-mill business journalism piece about deals, mergers, and acquisitions.
 * People getting hired by businesses can be newsworthy coverage – the source I cited clearly thought of it was. Would you dismiss a secondary source citing sources from two sports teams that they traded a player as PR for those sports teams? Just because something is neutral or reports facts that reflects well on a company doesn't mean it's PR. Can you give some examples of business journalism that don't criticize a business and which you wouldn't consider to be PR? Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to ask what examples of PR exist since this is exactly what it is, therefore the statement of "business journalism often focuses on the business finances, business funding, and who's investing in what business. If reliable sources report on them, then that goes towards meeting our notability guidelines", yet what is better than that is any statement that removes advertising (such as WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT), and that's something we should exactly make goals of making. An example of a non-blatant PR article is any global company such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, as these articles have meticulously been kept to not be a blatant PR like this one. As yet again, there's no compromises to keeping advertisements because that will be when we are killing this encyclopedia with unconvincing questions of "An advertisement? But it at least has sources!" SwisterTwister   talk
 * Please see WP:THREAD for how to properly indent conversations on Wikipedia. Not exactly sure what you're trying to say in your first sentence, but yes, we shouldn't have advertisements on Wikipedia. However if it means that any news coverage of businesses that doesn't criticize the business is to be dismissed as "PR", then yes, we should be having a discussion on what qualifies as "PR" and what doesn't. If a business gets in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources, it's notable. If the article seems too biased in favour of the business, the solution is then to edit the page, not to delete it. If you don't want to do it, slap a tag on the top of the article; PR people hate that anyway.
 * I didn't ask you to name articles about businesses that are notable. No one is arguing that the articles on Facebook, Google, and Microsoft should be deleted. I asked you if you can pick an example of a work of business journalism that presents neutral or positive facts about a business that you would not consider "PR".
 * BTW, all three of those pages use sources in ways that found problematic with this article. Secondary sources talking about what the company says about itself and hiring employees  Are these all just "PR" articles?  Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Concerns with promotional elements can be addressed by copy editing the article. Below are the sources I am basing my !vote upon. North America1000 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN
 * USA Today
 * Fortune
 * Fortune
 * Los Angeles Times
 * TechCrunch.
 * Fortune
 * TechCrunch
 * Fortune
 * (EC) Comment - The USAToday is a blatant profile listing for the woman herself and services no convincing other than PR, since it advertises her career and everything there is about her and the company, the same can be said for CNN which is the same contents and I'll note both actually the include interviewed information such as what her business thoughts are and the businesspeople she thinks about. With time going, TechCrunch becomes a worse and worse source to expect notability because it is and has become quite noticeable with PR, including (1) is that the journalist is listed as a "special contributor", suggesting questionability alone (simply the overall formatting and tone of article suggests this also), especially whether there was some enticing for PR and (2) the article, as expected, is also then only advertising what there is to say about the company including what the company has to say for itself. None of this can therefore be expected for substance and it's not helping anyone by listing them without taking these said concerns and acknowledging them seriously, instead of actually, yet again, tossing in PR after PR, instead of actually noticing the damages it causes. Let me also note that as I was clicking "save", yet another pile oF PR was added.... I will also then note the LATimes is literally an agenda listing what the company's own plans are, including the specifics of its own comapny situation and architecture, all in a thinly-sorted 7 paragrpahs. Also it helps no one to literally repeat them in a large list yet again as this is not only making the number of sources seem larger than they actually are, it's yet again completely ignoring the actual concerns listed here, which have been listed above; regardless of whatever or whoever says this or that, this is still an advertisement and we, as has happened at AfD, finish them with the best solutions which is deleting them. When we continue to allow such blatant advertisements especially when they have been company-influenced, we're damned. SwisterTwister   talk  04:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – All of the article I posted above are bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that regarding the latter, these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The term "pr" is a simple, two-letter acronym that is sometimes used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources as only one type. For example, USA Today and CNN were not paid by the company to publish these article, nor were any of the other sources. North America1000 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - As overwhelming consensus has shown here at AfD, not every blatant PR is always going to contain "This was paid", but it can still be shown and that's what my analyses has shown above, therefore the statements of "But these are news sources!" is not applying to the staunchly stated concerns above. There is nothing "independent" about PR, and the fact I myself stated above that one of them was by a blatant "journalist" listed as "special contributor" (this is actually what churnalism emulates, surreptitious attempts at making "news" seem like it's that, when it's in fact not), clearly meaning it was someone not from the actual news source. To state that "said news sources are dismissed in swaths because of supposed PR" is unconvincing as PR sources are still in fact PR sources no matter what they are perceived to be or whatever or whoever they may contain, therefore stating otherwise is not applicable here, if it's still PR. We seriously need to be careful about accepting such blatant advertisements, because it honestly is in fact what damages us each and every day, "news sources" be damned. This is exactly why WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT exist, which can be used in any case that would mean saving the encyclopedia, still yet again damning any supposed "news sources". SwisterTwister   talk  05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm unaware of any "overwhelming consensus" at AfD that not every blatant PR is always going to contain "This was paid", nor of any consensus stating that AfD nominations are irrefutable based upon the opinion of the nominator. No overwhelming consensus exists for these notions, nor are they a part of any of Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages regarding deletion. Regarding the notions of churnalism, not all sources that provide positive coverage about companies are churnalism as some sort of default. See also WP:CHURN for an interesting read. North America1000 05:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than adequate coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is contrary to the specific and exact analysis shown above clearly stating the concerns of the sources above, therefore it helps to substantiate one's own comment about what the concerns are and then actually acknowledging them. After showing the sources simply advertise the company's own words and what there is to advertise about the services listed, that's not "adequate" or "coverage". SwisterTwister   talk  06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because your analysis is wrong. Stop badgering every editor who disagrees with your nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since when does Wikipedia do punishment beatings? This is an obvious "I don't like the nominator" AFD, since the sourcing isn't just adequate, it's considerably better than most articles on companies this size, and the garbled "analysis" displays a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia; it's perfectly acceptable to include a secondary source discussing what a company says about itself. If not for the fact that I've already commented in the related Articles for deletion/Brit Morin and am thus WP:INVOLVED, I'd have speedy-closed this and warned the nominator for timewasting. &#8209; Iridescent 09:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per North America.Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  Be a guest 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Brit Morin who appears to be marginally more notable. The article is badly promotional, while this minor tech company is not notable per encyclopedia standards. I don't think Wikipedia needs both of these articles. See WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage spammers by keeping this article. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per NA1000's links listed above, the company clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG is not the only criteria for evaluating an article. See for example this self-cite content (which I can only describe as spam) that I just moved to the Talk page: Partners. This content is not acceptable, and if the article is kept, more would need to be removed, reducing the article to a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, it clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Problems with specific content can be taken up with normal editing, as per usual. AfD is not about current article content, it is about subject notability. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * GNG (a guideline) does not trump WP:NOT, which is a policy. Determining that an article only serves a promotional purpose is a perfect valid grounds for deletion. In fact, I believe it should be encouraged. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you need to re-read WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which clearly does not apply here, as the wiki article is not and will never be any of the 7 items in that list. Provide your own rationale for your own !vote, but don't counter others' rationales with rationales that don't even apply. I'm done with this conversation and will not reply further; my !vote and rationale re: clear notability are already backed up with evidence. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

`cd It doesn't matter if the company is notable, if the article was written for promotional purposes. WP does not serve for this purpose, and that is one of our basic policies. The correct way of thinking about this is WP:TNT, which says that is the company is actually notable, the first step is to delete the promotioanl article,and the second step is for someone to write a new one. Keeping the promotional material even in the history is a violation of our basic principles.  DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nature of editing -- it looks like article's creators has been involved with related articles in a paid capacity (per their user page). Could the editor please clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH per sourced listed by North America and Patar knight. The possibility that paid editing may have occurred doesn't have any bearing on whether the article's subject meets our notability standards. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources prove notability. If the article has too much AdSpeak, well, that can be edited out and it's no reason for deletion. Paid editing ditto.  Yinta n  07:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article contains 12 sources and there are apparently more available. That is more than enough evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. NPOV concerns can be addressed by standard editing. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:02, 15 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.