Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalyst (company)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Catalyst (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion with the reason: "Article seems to be corporate advertising. Sources do not show notability: they are trade magazines and business journals that report routine corporate activities, not news outlets that report notable events." Deletion contested by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - appearances in trade directories, on a list of "100 fastest growing private companies in this [small] metropolitan area" and getting listed on year as the "4293d fastest-growing private company in the U.S.", do not constitute the substantial coverage recovered to establish corporate notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, solid.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR

• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR

• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

This article meets the first criterion. I have quoted multiple non-trivial, and published works (whose publications are very respected and include a print version), and whose sources are independent of the company itself. Furthermore, there is nothing in the guidelines that states that "trade magazines and business journals" do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". Please note that the official requirements state "non-trivial published works", while you are instead claiming "notability" and "notable events". I would then ask you to define what a "notable event" is, and also to explain the difference between a "business journal" and a "news outlet". Would the New York Times for example be a business journal, or a news outlet?

I have clearly met the requirement of quoting multiple non-trivial *and* published works, whose sources are independent of the company itself. Again, if this fact is going to be contested, then I would ask for an explanation as to how the following examples remain on Wikipedia, some of which have absolutely no cited sources and have remained for over a year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBDO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorfish_(company)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hilimire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/GA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullen_Advertising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harte-Hanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Fish_Media

If no one objects, then as the articles author (and based on my understanding of reading the procedures, but please correct if I am wrong), then I would like to be removing the PROD tag and canceling the request for deletion based on the above explanations. --Vcardillo (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Vcardillo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not a PROD, and removing the tag will not stop this process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Orangemike. While the existence of other articles isn't one of the strongest arguments to keep an article, I'm always happy to check out leads on potential spam.  Thanks! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There's some third party sources, but they're not really useful for verification purposes and the article is pretty spammy. Steven Walling  00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So why aren't you including these for deletion as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBDO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorfish_%28company%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/GA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullen_Advertising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harte-Hanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_and_Napier

You cannot honestly claim this article is spam without claiming the other ones are too. That would be representative of an inconsistent policy on your end. You should be explaining your logic in full for the benefit of other readers and viewers so as not to come off as an authoritarian force ruling on whim. You have not refuted any of my arguments or responded to my direct challenges of your logic. You are all simply ganging up and chanting "delete" without any corroborating evidence or statutes.

re: User:Ihcoyc. I understand your point, but I don't think you understood mine. I am comparing apples to apples. The weak reasons being cited here for deletion would then also need to be applied to those other articles I've mentioned above--which they have not.

"Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate"

I've cited the policies--no one else has. Once again:

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR

I have yet to see this point properly challenged or refuted. --Vcardillo (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the policy where it states that trade magazines and business journals do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". "appearances in trade directories, on a list of "100 fastest growing private companies in this [small] metropolitan area" and getting listed on year as the "4293d fastest-growing private company in the U.S.", do not constitute the substantial coverage recovered to establish corporate notability."
 * Further Explanation Requested

+ Please cite the definition of a trade directory.

+ Please define "corporate notability" and cite where it is mentioned in your policies.

+ If this article does not "meet corporate notability", please define what does, and cite such explanation in your policies. Stating that this company "isn't notable enough" isn't sufficient explanation beyond your subjective opinion.

--Vcardillo (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article meets the first criterion. I have quoted multiple non-trivial, and published works (whose publications are very respected and include a print version), and whose sources are independent of the company itself. Furthermore, there is nothing in the guidelines that states that "trade magazines and business journals" do not constitute as "non-trivial published works". Please note that the official requirements state "non-trivial published works", while you are instead claiming "notability" and "notable events". I would then ask you to define what a "notable event" is, and also to explain the difference between a "business journal" and a "news outlet". Would the New York Times for example be a business journal, or a news outlet?

Also, this company has been cited extensively in a published book (available in all major bookstores and on Amazon). Please let me know if this has any bearing on this entry. Thank you. --Vcardillo (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A smallish company which has not achieved notability. Links are passing mentions in trade magazines; apparently not a single newspaper has taken note of this company. (And I can't believe that the article's author is actually citing "2010 RANKING: #4293" as an argument for notability! The four-thousandth-and-change fastest growing company? Really???) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To: VCardillo, your arguments are passionate but are getting repetitive and are not really helping. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to show you why the "look at all those other articles!" argument won't get you anywhere in an AfD discussion. And see WP:Conflict of interest for why you are not the best person to be arguing here, or even to be writing the article  - since you appear to be an employee of the company. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! Earlier I posted a link to your Facebook page, as evidence that you work for the company. But I shouldn't have done that - it's against Wikipedia policy - and I apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

+ Once again I ask for the definition of what notability is, and how it is determined. How is this defined, and where is it defined.

+ Newspaper article: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080407/BUSINESS/804070312/Turning-databases-into-direct-marketing-solutions

+ As I said above, mentioned and quoted extensively in a published book: http://www.amazon.com/Direct-Mail-Digital-Age-Grensing-Pophal/dp/1770400710

+ I vehemently disagree with the "other stuff" negation. You are setting your own precedents as Wikipedians and they need to be consistent in order for people to take you seriously.

+ My arguments are repetitive because you're not actually answering any of my questions. Only posting insulting opinions.

--Vcardillo (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The definition of notability is very precise. You can read it at WP:N and WP:CORP. Specifically,
 * "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
 * "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product."
 * "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."
 * "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
 * The problem is that all of the sources you have provided are trivial (not significant) or are local (i.e., the Democrat and Chronicle) or "of limited interest and circulation" (i.e., trade magazines). As for the book, I don't know what it says about this company, but I notice that the author is basically a ghost writer according to his web page, so I don't know how independent or reliable his work is. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

+ For about the 5th time I will again quote our own policies and ask where it says that a company must be notable to be published:

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR

• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR

• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

Please explain how you are implying "notability" from that definition, from our very own requirements. Do you understand what I am saying? You're throwing terms at me that aren't listed anywhere when creating an article. The definition for creation cites non-trivial, and you're continually mentioning "notability". Nowhere during the creation process for a company wiki article is "notability" mentioned.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N -- "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." This is a company and not a *topic*, so in the very first sentence I would deem that link as irrelevant to this discussion.

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

You're basically making my point for me. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,""

''Primary Criteria: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.''

And now to reiterate: This company has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources (as opposed to primary sources). Such sources were reliable. Such sources were independent of the subject. Multiple independent sources were cited.

"Links are passing mentions in trade magazines; apparently not a single newspaper has taken note of this company." -- I then quoted a newspaper, to which you responded: "The problem is that all of the sources you have provided are trivial (not significant) or are local (i.e., the Democrat and Chronicle) or "of limited interest and circulation" (i.e., trade magazines)."

By what grounds do you make this distinction? The D&C has a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_and_Chronicle and is noted as "the most widely circulated daily newspaper in the greater Rochester, New York area."

"attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability;" I have shown attention from national media and nationally circulated magazines. The concept of "limited interest" is your opinion. Everything is relatively of "limited interest" depending on perspective. I do not believe that any of you are providing objective arguments here.

Ultimately I find all of the arguments here to be lacking substantial substance, and I find this "notability" reference to be extremely circular and hypocritical. I've met all of your criteria for an article. --Vcardillo (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you have convinced yourself. You have not convinced anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again quoting our own policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

So please stop inserting your opinions on this company itself.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." -- Not the case with anything I cited.

I have not cited any self-published media.

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." -- I have cited sources that are published in printed and online, online, and printed only. No sources I have cited are self-published.

You are also not addressing my questions:

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

• the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR

• listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR

• used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

Please explain how I have not met the first criteria rather than stating random opinions not backed by facts. Thank you.

--Vcardillo (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to escalate this issue to beyond the people here. As a donor and longtime user of Wikipedia I do not believe that anyone here has properly refuted any of my arguments in a logical manner, are acting in a fair way, or are providing objective refutations to my statements. I would like more than a pitchfork and tar trial. Please let me know what higher governing body I can attest to, as I believe the issues presented here are larger than anyone has been willing to work with me on. Thanks, --Vcardillo (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was looking to close this as delete, as there is a clear consensus from experienced Wikipedians that this topic doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. However, having looked at the claims made by the article creator, and at the sources, I feel there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources to establish a notability for the topic. It would be inappropriate for me to apply a super vote, and close as keep against consensus, so I am withdrawing as closer, and adding my own comment of support for this article having met our inclusion criteria. The arguments in favour of deletion would be that either Direct marketing News and BtoB are not reliable sources, or that the material published in those journals, are press releases. The sources are professional journals with appropriate editorial control which are cited by other news organisations. They are clearly reliable sources.  That they are working in a discrete area and with a relatively small readership is also true of most academic and scholarly journals. The reports in the journals are varied, and while some may be press releases, or written by the company themselves (this one says "our business" rather than "their business), other reports are clearly not originated from the company, and some include quotes or interviews which have clearly been originated by the journals themselves. I feel there is enough evidence that reliable publications which specialise in the company's field deem this company to be notable, so this article meets our notability guidelines. That the company is not popular or well known outside its field is not a genuine consideration. If we have sufficient evidence that within its field it is considered notable, and that the field is itself notable (which it is: Direct marketing and Digital marketing), then we should be keeping the article.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply. SilkTork -- Thanks. You summarized my primary points and concerns very succinctly. If anything, I certainly have a new appreciation for the scrutiny by which new articles undergo. Please let me know if there are any other details I can provide. Thanks, --Vcardillo (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Another marketing firm writing a WP article for themselves and aggressively defending it with non-notable sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2011 (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.