Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cachebox TV


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Cachebox TV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was written by the founder of the company. The sources are: the patents themselves and churnalism - press releases, which do not amount to independent coverage. Google offers nothing by way of substantive coverage. The article rises above A7 and is not a blatant advertisement, but it is a business directory entry and fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect there are no 'press releases' - the company has not issued any press releases. The entry lists a series of verifiable events or milestones e.g. On 12 July 2016 the USPTO granted the Cachebox patent and gave it U.S Patent No.: 9,392 302
 * On 1 January 2017 Cachebox revised its website and began trading under the name SafeCast, its UK registered trade mark.
 * On 1 March 2017 SafeCast became an Associate Member of the Digital Policy Alliance.
 * On 16 November 2017 SafeCast published a video submission to the DCMS Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper on YouTube. entitled "Age Verification - Protecting Children on TV and the Internet ...AlistairKelman (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You continue to misunderstand. You have only primary sources, you have yet to provide any example of your company being discussed by reliable independent sources. Your own publications do not help. This is largely the same issue you had with the deleted article on WikiTribune: you consider you are bringing The Truth&trade;, but we see opinion at best and self-promotion at worst. We don't care about patents. British Railways Board had a patent for a spacecraft powered by atomic bombs, that's not going anywhere any time soon. Can you see why we have an article on that? Look at the bottom, where it says References. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the subject of this article has sufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability.  References are either non-independent or are niche/routine - overall they simply lack WP:CORPDEPTH.  Peacock (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral for 48 Hours to give the author a chance to provide examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources. If no examples are forthcoming, my !vote will be Delete. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Zero examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources, despite repeated requests. I also did my own search and found nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note in passing that the author should not edit the article directly, what with it being his company and all. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. AlistairKelman, if you post the references here or on the article talk page and they meet Wikipedia's requirements someone here will add them to the article. If they are sufficient to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG this deletion discussion will almost certainly be withdrawn or relisted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing but self-promotion. [Following up on Guy Macon's comment... If the user in question finds proper sourcing, I would change my stance.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article is solely about what this company plans to do with an undefined patent, and how it is securing financing; sources are WP:PRIMARY from the patent offices, business directories and the company website. A google search of "Cachebox TV" led to only 447 total results, mostly directories or Wikipedia mirrors.  I could not find a single independent source actually talking about this company, which hasn't actually done anything but raise money and choose a trade name. This speaks volumes about it being WP:TOOSOON for an article entry for this company. The author's claims that "commercial confidentiality" prevents discussion in what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources lead me to believe Wikipedia should aid in maintaining their confidentiality.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing discussion
One of the contributors to this discussion has asked for me to provide "examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources." For reasons of commercial confidentiality and in view of the fact that all discussions are on private platforms at the moment I can only provide one - https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2018/01/04/age-verification-protecting-children-on-tv-and-the-internet/ AlistairKelman (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * see WP:SPS. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

From now on I am happy to post the references here on the talk page so that other editors/administrators can review and add them to the article if they comply with Wikipedia's rules. This suggestion is helpful since the fact that I am a co-founder of the company and the inventor named in the company's granted patents have caused me difficulties in writing about the company in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. There are a number of market events which are happening over the course of the next few weeks to the company which will require revisions to its Wikipedia entry. I am unable to say further at this stage.

As matters currently stand each and every item in the entry can be independently verified - for example the fact that the company is an Associate Member of the Digital Policy Alliance in the UK Parliament can be verified by looking at https://www.dpalliance.org.uk/people/members/ AlistairKelman (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a directory and does not establish notability. Per WP:GNG/WP:CORP you need to provide reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the company directly and in depth. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based upon past behavior, I am predicting that AlistairKelman will now show zero evidence of having read and tried to understand WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In my opinion, we are wasting our time trying to have a conversation with someone who simply refuses to listen. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, I'm just trying to be fair. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Guy, the rules WP:GNG/WP:CORP are directed at the issue of whether the company or organisation is sufficiently notable to justify an entry in Wikipedia or not. They are not directed at whether specific statements contained in a Wikipedia entry about a company or organisation are true and can be established as such through independent verification from sources which are not controlled by someone who is connected with the company or organisation which is the issue in this case. You are conflating unconnected matters - independent verification is not the same as notability. AlistairKelman (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not provided sources to substantiate notability. That is the only thing that is relevant in this discussion. Adding more sources that do not substantiate notability, will have no effect on the outcome of this debate, so is a waste of time at this point. Provide non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Only those, nothing else, because we are not in the least bit interested in padding out an article that's headed for deletion. Also, as basically a spammer, you are in a poor position to lecture veteran Wikipedians with over a hundred thousand edits to tens of thousands of pages, on the proper interpretation of policy. Bit rude, in fact. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect to the above the US and UK patents are not undefined but are granted patents that are searchable and available on the web - hence they cannot be compared with being WP:TOOSOON which appears to be intended for future films and similar projects which may or may not come into existance. The owner of a granted patent has rights which can be enforced against any infringer of the claims in the patent. Getting a patent granted is an difficult, lengthy, rare and extensive process. Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions.AlistairKelman (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are undefined in the article; obviously, the patent must be defined somewhere or it would not have been awarded. WP:TOOSOON deals with more than just films, and until this company has a marketable product which has been released and sold, and is talked about in reliable sources, then it is simply too soon for them to have gained the notability required to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is just that, an encyclopedia - not a social media site, and not promotional web space for a product that does not yet exist.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Although your argument is completely irrelevant to the article deletion process (you have yet to provide any example of your company being discussed by reliable independent sources), this is Wikipedia, where we specialize in fact checking dubious claims like "very few inventions get through the patent processes".


 * In the UK the numbers for the latest year available were:


 * Applications Filed: 13,842
 * Applications Published: 6,289
 * Patents Granted: 2,893


 * In the US the numbers were:


 * Applications Filed: 2,863
 * Applications Published: 2,567
 * Patents Granted: 1,321


 * The worldwide numbers were:


 * Applications Filed: 22,055
 * Applications Published: 12,065
 * Patents Granted: 5,602


 * Source: UK Intellectual Property Office, Facts and figures: Patent, trade mark, design and hearing administrative data 2015 and 2016 calendar years]


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You make a fair point Guy in reliance on the UKIPO stats - but there are several stages before a patent application is filed. My statement was "Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions". Might I direct you to an independent reliable source such as Chapter 10 of Professor Andrew Murray's book Information Technology Law (2nd edition) (ISBN-10: 0199661510) and his discussion of the key cases Navitaire Inc. v easyJet Airline Co. and anor, Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and SAS Institute v World Programming Ltd. These and the discussions fully support, in context, my statement that "Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions" AlistairKelman (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * all very interesting but completely irrelevant because our test for notability - and therefore inclusion - is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- promotional article on a company that's not notable just yet. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & essentially spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (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.