Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CharterUP


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Arguments came down on whether given sources satisfied the significance/depth requirements of SIGCOV/NCORP criteria; there's a consensus that the sources provided do not meet those requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CharterUP

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Paid-for corporate puff piece about a bus-related company that is so blatantly an advert for a non-notable company that even the bus enthusiasts are ignoring the article. We cannot allow paid-for promotional articles to go unchallenged. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Texas. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - multiple reliable sources establish notability: Axios, The Dallas Morning News and the Austin American-Statesman. 10mmsocket - I feel your pain and I appreciate your watching for this stuff; you are en editor's editor. However, I've learned here over the years that puffery is an argument for de-puffing, not deletion. Deletion hinges on notability. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not strictly accurate to say notability is the only that an article may be deleted. Notability is only one of the 14 reasons listed in WP:DELREASON, and it is explicitly not an exhaustive list. That said, the Axios article does not appear satisfactory, I do intend to look through the available sourcing before a bolded !vote. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alpha3031, I'm curious - any particular reason the Axios article doesn't count? Also, which of the 14 reasons in WP:DELREASON do you think apply? -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's routine coverage @A. B.? Is there any reason why you think it counts towards ORGCRIT or even GNG despite that? Even beyond the ORGIND issues that their practices raise, which I'm frankly not going to evaluate because failing CORPDEPTH is already enough, "standard notices" have been explicitly treated in CORP for quite a while now (since 2011 at least). I'm not going to write a full rationale until I'm back at my desk, I just thought I'd mention that DELPOL explicitly includes (but does not limit itself to) 13 other reasons. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for carefully considering sources before adding a bolded vote, Alpha3031. I replied to a vote to delete below with the same sources, but two I believe establish WP:SIGCOV are the Austin American Statesman piece and the Forbes article (written by a senior contributor, but a subject matter expert) . Michellecharterup (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Austin American Statesman piece is just a re-wording of a corporate press release - https://www.tritiumpartners.com/news-article/real-time-charter-bus-marketplace-charterup-raises-60m-series-a-led-by-tritium-partners 10mmsocket (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The byline on the article shows that Lori Hawkins, a trusted business reporter, considered the information to be trustworthy. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - As required per WP:AVOIDCOI, I am disclosing my interest in this article as an employee of the subject of this article. I also disclosed the conflict of interest in my personal profile before submitting any content or edits.


 * I acknowledge and appreciate the concerns raised by 10mmsocket regarding the potential conflict of interest, and agree that promotional language has no place in Wikipedia. However, I would also like to stress the importance of assessing the potential notability of the subject independently of my own conflict of interest.


 * The CharterUP article may have been initially composed by a paid editor (myself), but we must remember that the essence of Wikipedia is to foster collaborative editing. Instead of outright deletion, it would be more productive to encourage edits that remove promotional language and add neutrality to the article. This is an open invitation to all editors, including 10mmsocket, to participate in further refining the article.


 * On the topic of notability, CharterUP's relevance has been validated by coverage in multiple established media sources, as A._B. previously mentioned.


 * A fair bit of content that establishes CharterUP's notability, including the company's role in helping the charter bus industry recover from the pandemic, appears to have been removed in an attempt to eliminate the potential promotional tone of the article. It would be beneficial to the article and to Wikipedia's readers to consider reinstating and rephrasing these sections in a neutral tone, to adequately represent the company's significance in the industry.


 * The core argument here seems to be against promotional language rather than against the inherent notability of CharterUP. This indicates a need for revision and neutral editing, rather than outright deletion. My history will show that I have submitted edits based on recommendations for improvement, and I would be glad to continue this effort – however, given this discussion, I think those edits would be more meaningful from a Wikipedia user with no connection to the subject.  --Michellecharterup (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources fail to provide WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * UtherSRG, could you explain why the sources cited in the article fail to provide WP:SIGCOV? The Austin American Statesman article is a bylined article that speaks about CharterUP's Fortune 500 clients and recent Series A investment. The Forbes article details the pandemic's impact on the motorcoach industry and how CharterUP is helping operators recover. . While the Forbes piece is written by a senior contributor (WP:FORBESCON), I would argue that author Ed Garsten is a subject matter expert and the piece would therefore be considered a reliable source as suggested in WP:RS/P. Garsten has been covering the auto industry since 1989, first as CNN Detroit Bureau Chief, then as the National Auto Writer for the Associated Press, General Motors beat writer at the Detroit News and video reporter at Automotive News. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both articles include a significant portion of their facts directly from Harris, who is inherently not independent of the subject, being the company's CEO. Discounting that info, there isn't much left to call significant coverage. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your time and the explanation you provided. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:SIGCOV.
 * Although the news articles rely heavily on quotes and facts from Armir Harris, these outlets have been determined as reliable sources because of their "reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." Having been privy to the publishing process of these pieces, I can share that the reporters involved in the creation of these articles carried out an extensive fact-checking process with industry associations, federal data sets, and financial reports. That said, I do recognize that Wikipedia's policy is to focus on the content that is directly present within the sources.
 * Would it bolster the subject's notability to cite sources such as Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data? Please accept my apologies if this is not the appropriate platform to pose these questions. I am more than willing to continue this discussion on the talk page or any other recommended venue. Michellecharterup (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely any bus operator will have such data? All that would confirm is that the company exists, not that it is notable. There are dozens of ways to confirm existence. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 10mmsocket: This discussion may be a sign that I've done a poor job describing the role of CharterUP in the industry. Much of the data that the cited articles attribute to Armir Harris (as pointed out by UtherSRG) can be verified by independent federal data sources. That discussion seems to be straying from your original question of CharterUP's notability.
 * More than 600 independent bus operators participate in CharterUP's marketplace by offering automatic bids for trip requests placed through the self-serve quote feature.   According to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data, there are 2,014 bus operators registered as of May 23, 2023 . I'm surprised that the notability of a marketplace connecting ~30% of the nation's motorcoach operators with groups in need of transportation is being questioned, but I look forward to learning how to better describe the platform within Wikipedia's guidelines. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Austin American Statesman article is heavily based on the same press release by Tritium Partners, that is used by Metro Atlanta CEO article you quote, and also by Yahoo. So two sources you assert to be notable are nothing more than company press releases. Again, I assert that this article is a paid-for corporate puff piece that has no place on Wikipedia. You should consider whether it is worth an employee of the company continuing to push a discredited article, or just gracefully withdrawing. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The CharterUP article has not been discredited until an admin makes that decision. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Admins don't delete articles - unless they qualify for speedy deletion of course. It is the peer group of editors who determine, based on discussion, whether an article should be deleted. I'm saying it's a paid-for corporate puff piece based on sources that are predominantly derived from press-releases. It is discredited. It has no place on Wikipedia. You should withdraw it. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am truly attempting to understand and honor Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. If it is not an admin that makes the ultimate decision after a discussion such as this, perhaps the WP:INTROTODELETE page referenced in the infobox at the top of this page should be revised. I will not be withdrawing this article, but I will withdraw from further discussion here unless there is a specific question or information I can provide. Michellecharterup (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's nice that almost all the google results are about the company, but it does also make it fairly easy to see that most coverage falls under the standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of WP:CORPDEPTH. The fact that they're also fairly obviously derived from press kits means that they also fail WP:ORGIND, but depth alone is enough to remove them from consideration. As a personal observation, I believe the company unlikely to achieve notability by our standards in the near future, even if it does meet the standard of significance. The issue of potential content leads into the issue of actual content, which we do also look at in deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, the oft cited TNT. Yet, also, contrast PRESERVE. The difference is, of course, whether we might find use for the existing content: were the appropriate sources to exist, that we could write an encyclopedic article, would we write anything the same or substantially similar in tone or content. That is the difference between what is edited in place, stubified or deleted. I don't believe we could, meaning that's a delete or draftify (I would lean delete, but it was not and would not be deleted in draftspace). It's not G11, no, but AfD operates on different standards. Just as we don't have db-nn, conversely, at AfD we may decide for an article substantively but not blatantly promotional — the about-us-page copy that leaves the first impression of "uh, is this G12?" but is not an ad — that it not be retained. There are other relevant essays, for example SERIESA, and also an overall disinclination towards cleaning up after COI and (especially) paid editors.
 * For better or for worse Michelle, you're likely going to be on your own until you get the article most if not all the way there. After all, you're paid to do this, and we're not. Though there is the possibility that the topic organically attracts editors in the future, that's not something that happens just because it's in mainspace. If you or your bosses are set on having a Wikipedia page, then have patience. Wikipedia's Notability is a lagging indicator. Alpha3031 (t • c)


 * Appreciate your thoughtful consideration, Alpha3031. I did put some work into the article yesterday to better demonstrate the notability of CharterUP in the context of the charter bus industry. If your response was written after considering the additional context and sources, I can accept that vote. Otherwise, I would request you revisit the article once more and let me know if your decision still stands.
 * FWIW, have not taken on this project for myself or my bosses – a few of our operating partners mentioned in anonymous surveys that a Wikipedia article would be helpful in giving their customers & communities a more neutral overview of the marketplace they participate in.
 * I do plan on making contributions to the more general bus transportation Wikipedia articles with information about the pandemic impact and recovery, as that context is notable with or without CharterUP's involvement. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. I agree with the analysis above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, none contain "Independent Content" and in-depth information. Perhaps can throw some light on which sources met the criteria for establishing notability when it was moved from Drafts, especially seeing as how other commentators requested WP:THREE and pointed out the paucity of references?   HighKing++ 16:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that I saw this. I’m at work right now but will be off around 1:30pm PST. I’ll take a deeper look at this then. Thanks for the ping.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok @HighKing here are some sources about this topic which pass for WP:GNG. I'm going to assume that I was pinged here in good faith and that this wasn't some attempt to drag me into this AfD or question my competency as an editor or reviewer for AfC or NPP. I'm not saying the article is good but it does appear to pass WP:GNG and the sources are pretty clear. Hence why I'm a bit confused why I'm here at all. We started this AfD off with @10mmsocket calling it a "Paid-for corporate puff piece...We cannot allow paid-for promotional articles to go unchallenged.". That may be true, but let's not bite to newbies here. It appears that @Michellecharterup has updated their userpage and is figuring things out. The article needs some serious work, I'm not claiming otherwise. If this article upsets anyone this much then just go fix it, it's a lot easier to complain at AfD about an article then it is to address the concerns.
 * I know I talked a big game about being bold and telling everyone to just "go fix the problems" but I just got the new Final Fantasy game so I'm going to go do that now. Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can clear up for anyone.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was very curious as to why you moved this article from Draft to Mainspace, mostly because I searched and was unable to identify for myself any reference that in my opinion came close to meeting notability criteria. I was especially curious as this had been flagged by other editors, so for you to essentially overrule those queries, I hoped you had seen something. I note you say those references meet GNG - this is a company therefore we examine references against GNG/NCORP. NCORP provides more detailed examples and explanations to help editors correctly identify whether references for companies meet the criteria. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP as they all rely on information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Mistakes happen, no biggie.  HighKing++ 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I talked a big game about being bold and telling everyone to just "go fix the problems" but I just got the new Final Fantasy game so I'm going to go do that now. Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can clear up for anyone.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was very curious as to why you moved this article from Draft to Mainspace, mostly because I searched and was unable to identify for myself any reference that in my opinion came close to meeting notability criteria. I was especially curious as this had been flagged by other editors, so for you to essentially overrule those queries, I hoped you had seen something. I note you say those references meet GNG - this is a company therefore we examine references against GNG/NCORP. NCORP provides more detailed examples and explanations to help editors correctly identify whether references for companies meet the criteria. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP as they all rely on information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Mistakes happen, no biggie.  HighKing++ 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I talked a big game about being bold and telling everyone to just "go fix the problems" but I just got the new Final Fantasy game so I'm going to go do that now. Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can clear up for anyone.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was very curious as to why you moved this article from Draft to Mainspace, mostly because I searched and was unable to identify for myself any reference that in my opinion came close to meeting notability criteria. I was especially curious as this had been flagged by other editors, so for you to essentially overrule those queries, I hoped you had seen something. I note you say those references meet GNG - this is a company therefore we examine references against GNG/NCORP. NCORP provides more detailed examples and explanations to help editors correctly identify whether references for companies meet the criteria. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP as they all rely on information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Mistakes happen, no biggie.  HighKing++ 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was very curious as to why you moved this article from Draft to Mainspace, mostly because I searched and was unable to identify for myself any reference that in my opinion came close to meeting notability criteria. I was especially curious as this had been flagged by other editors, so for you to essentially overrule those queries, I hoped you had seen something. I note you say those references meet GNG - this is a company therefore we examine references against GNG/NCORP. NCORP provides more detailed examples and explanations to help editors correctly identify whether references for companies meet the criteria. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP as they all rely on information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Mistakes happen, no biggie.  HighKing++ 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Michellecharterup has said that her company - the subject of the article and the ones paying her to write the article - are under pressure from other partners to do something positive by writing a wikipedia article. It's clear when you read the company's reviews at Better Business Bureau that they are desperate to get something positive out there because they must be hurting really badly from all the negative feedback. Their motivation is clearly "keep the article at any price" and their desperation is showing. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of any notability, The entire article is a puff-piece/advert and the sources aren't worth the paper they're written on (they all seem promotional), Fails NCORP and GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete That is a terrible article. Its a puff piece. Massively WP:PROMO. I don't know what game they're playing but its not our game.  scope_creep Talk  10:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources as provided by Dr vulpes establish notability. Neutrality and paid editing issues can be fixed by cleanup. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Like several other editors, I don't find that the sources presented meet CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, however, I strongly feel that not only should the closing admin ignore Michellecharterup's comments here, they should be stricken entirely.  Not only has she been indeffed for editing an article for a subject that paid her to do it, but it should be bloody axiomatic that anything she's said in this AfD was tainted by the partisan association, and cannot be trusted to have had the good of the encyclopedia over her employer in mind.   Ravenswing      11:37, 27 June 2023 (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.