Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitizenShipper


 * 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 no consensus. After nearly a month, no clear consensus has emerged. Discussion regarding promotional tane and quality of sourcing should continue on the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

CitizenShipper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article, almost a G11. The sources are every one of them unreliable (--they are either straight PR admitted as such, like the reference from Business Day  or based on PR, as the article said to be archived from Yahoo news (which often just reprints stories from elsewhere) but present on a promotional site) or irrelevant--such as the documentation on industry's inefficiency. The reference from a book turns out to be a mere listing in a table. This does not help--it indicates straining after any mention available. There is one particular feature which I have seen in many promotional articles, and only in promotional articles " graduate student and physicist Richard Obousy, while making weekly Houston–Waco personal trips, began considering transportation efficiency as a whole. He determined that ..." Accounts of how the founder happened to conceive the project can be based only on what he himself chooses to say (regardless of which publication reprints it); though they may be of some reader interest tin the case of famous companies and products, they normally are merely the sort of fluff with which one begins an interview. Similarly, the entire body of material on the inefficiency of the usual transportation system is the sort of justification used to indicate the importance of the subject--while it can do this for the overall subject, such as a general article on a mode of transportation, it is entirely out of place in the article on a particular company in the field. It's what publicists say to make their clients appear important. We deal with this at WP by a link to the general article, not including it in the article on the company. The article also makes a very exceptional claim, that there were zero complaints about lost or damaged articles. For any mode of transporting objects, this is so exceptional that it requires exceptionally reliable sources, not merely one magazine article that seems to be based only on what the company chooses to tell them, not an actual scientific investigation. (and that article appears to be an interview where the interviewer basically allowed the founder to say whatever he wanted.) The mention of a few disparate organizations that recommend their services is promotional.

I think the company is probably notable, but an acceptable article would need to start over. The article is written by an admitted paid editor. This does not necessarily condemn it, but this particular editor--like almost all of them-- is not among the very few who have learned how to write encyclopedia articles. I am checking their other contributions  DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, I am looking this over closely along with your other contributions, thanks (I think). Since you are a Cooperation member and you find the company probably notable, I would love it if you could help support my learning to write encyclopedic articles in the process. I don't know why you took the time to write here rather than to stub the article; found your rationale on my talk but a promotional article on a probable notable is not addressed by an AFD. I'd appreciate it if you could give me a moment to review everything you said and work with you on the changes needed. I appreciate the scrutiny but when a lot happens at once it's somewhat overwhelming. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or userfy (see below for or move): Anyway, the article was approved by APerson at AFC, and if there is any doubt about notability then I would think it should go back to draftspace to allow time for sources to be found. I made my judgment about notability based on profiles in what appear to be clear RS (Courier Magazine, Discovery News, Mother Earth News, BusinessDay, and other sources that use editorial judgment). You may be judging that the Courier interviewer allowed anything to be said, but that does not make the source unreliable; it means we need to attribute the quote, which I am doing. Some of the other reasons above are not the best either. "Probably notable" and "need to start over" are not AFD reasons. Thanks. Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Approval from one person (a person even) does not override community consensus and does not give an article a free pass against notability requirements and the requirement not to read like a Yellow Pages advertisement. Sorry, but the article is horribly promotional, with disingenuous sourcing (basically original research) and others sources that are obviously not independent of the subject.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I take an OR concern seriously and I'm not sure how sourcing itself can be considered OR, so I'd love to make improvements if you can tell me what you mean. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I think you meant peak oil and DOT, edited. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Blow it up and start again . I'm not convinced there are enough independent sources to substantiate a pass against WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe. But if there are, this really isn't a Wikipedia article. It's basically just an advertisement. Some of the sourcing is just plain dishonest, like the "Yahoo" source which is an article with no author hosted by the company's commercial partner on their website without attribution. This is used as a source to support the claim that "Yahoo! News considered CitizenShipper..." Honestly, it's hard to provide a succinct opinion on the article given how intermeshed the poor and dishonest sourcing is with the possibly okay sourcing. While not relevant to deletion or not (per se) the obvious COI here is a real problem. While declared and honest (perhaps the most honest thing about the article) it has resulted in a style of writing and sourcing that is almost entirely blinkered and self-serving. Many of the articles used as sources balance praise for the company with criticism and attempts to dispel obvious concerns from clients. But none of that makes it into the article in the same way it might if the article was being written by someone independent of the subject. The result is gushing promo-spam that glosses over concerns about private citizens functioning as independent operators in the heavily regulated road transport industry. That's a matter for the author rather than this discussion but it really does need to be resolved.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that when I started this article with my own judgment that CitizenShipper is the subject of multiple significant articles in independent reliable sources (including Yahoo), it was also obvious that the topic is even more notable, as he is connected to a few other projects that have lots of coverage and have passed AFDs, and he is cited as a reliable source himself a couple times. There are a couple volunteer COI accounts connected to the nonprofits who are working on some of these articles, but they have passed muster. I thought that CitizenShipper was independently notable enough to start coverage with it as well. But a good method to address the concerns above, rather than for me to debate about them, is just to move to Richard Obousy and trim CitizenShipper to a section of that (yes, TNT could be part of this). Should I begin editing the article to demonstrate what I mean? (I believe that editing directly to address concerns stated above or at my talk is permitted.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * General responses: A book that lists CitizenShipper in a table counts as reliable and I'd say not irrelevant but less significant; the other sources I listed above similarly used editorial judgment and were not "based on PR". If founder statements are unencyclopedic, that has been addressed and I asked DGG a related question. Transportation inefficiency has been copied to the right article; we can consider trimming it here. Zero complaints was stated in Courier's voice and should be considered as having passed editorial judgment, although I trimmed this sentence also. I don't know that organizational recommendations are promotional; they might be unencyclopedic, but they indicate interrelationships and are the sort of things WP routinely collates, so I added a tag there. Calling the Yahoo article dishonest sourcing may be right but if so I've been deceived too; I AGF'd about the link being genuine when it was archived by Escrow and also here and so if I need to learn something about Yahoo reliability I can get schooled. I deleted "Yahoo! News considered". I'd be happy to add criticism, client concerns, private citizens vs. regulation where that can be seen; I had read through everything and didn't see anything about regulatory concerns about private citizens connecting to this company, but maybe they can be put in a groupage article. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your intention seems to be to find a solution acceptable to the Wikipedia community and to your commercial client, rather than to simply re-write your article in a way that ensures it's not so promotional that deletion is a viable option. Trust me, the latter would be far easier. As DDG outlined in his nomination, the issue here is not notability. It might be borderline but both of us have acknowledged that the company is probably notable. The problem here is the article. And please don't think I have anything against COI editors; my talk page is littered with edit requests from COI editors with whom I have established a working relationship. I might leave a note in your talk page about the other stuff because the focus here should be this article. To answer some of your questions - no, I don't think you should create Richard Obousy. Moving content there doesn't address the problem, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. He may well be notable too. I think you've had the great fortune (in this instance) to have been hired by a company that's actually notable. The irrelevant side-notes about what the CEO was thinking when he founded the company are still there. The article that serves as a source for his motivation says it related to "crazy gas prices" but somehow that made it into the article as a link to Hubbert peak theory and an unrelated government report. It seems the point was the make the whole thing look far more justified, cutting edge and "big problem/big solution" than just a smart guy with a good idea. Likewise, the section about eBay that talks about "thorough testing protocols" is sourced to an eBay document that doesn't and doesn't mention the subject at all. That entire section is effectively unsourced because the only other source cited is a four-line summary of an article that doesn't exist elsewhere. It's not as if that has since become a deadlink - the article is from 2013 and hasn't been available for a while, which suggests you have access to sources that others don't (an obvious problem when dealing with COI). A total of 8 claims are sourced to an article from Mother Earth News which seems to have been cut-pasted from a press release (in fact the language is very similar to that used by the company's FAQ page). The extensive methodology section is a problem, especially since most of it reads like a press release and is based on quotes from Obousy. Projected cost savings shouldn't be sourced to the company either (and need really strong sourcing to be included at all). The point of WP:TNT is exactly that - to blow it up and start over again because simply editing it here and there won't be enough.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So we all agree on stub or TNT? I can continue working with you by (more) edits to founding motive, proper links if needed at all, eBay, Mother Earth if it resembles the FAQ (I'll look), methodology, and cost savings. Maybe you could make a bold edit so I know what you're looking for, and I'll respond? Thanks. I must bypass your stated perceptions about my intentions, and real-world relationships, and the point of my edits, and source access. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, the DOT sources were added at the request of a DYK editor, so I can go either way as you compare notes on that question. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you should avoid DYK for COI articles. There's no specific requirement to do so but (for me) it crosses the line between writing something to inform editors as a volunteer and promoting a company as a corporate client by writing an article and then getting it on the front page. In my experience, DYK volunteers often struggle with COI for that reason and then find themselves giving all sorts of advice. I saw the note on your talk page about trying to find a singularity in terms of quality between COI and non-COI work. That's admirable but I think you still need to make a distinction, yourself, between those two streams of work and DYK should be one of those distinctions. I'd be okay with stubbing the article if it can be done effectively. I don't think any of the edits so far have been substantial enough (in terms of problem-solving) to substantiate that as a viable solution right now. But I'm certainly open to it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've now extensively edited the article, cutting back a whole bunch of irrelevant rubbish including unnecessary multiple references to the company name and website. In an article about a company its okay to refer to "the company". Otherwise it just looks like a clumsy attempt at SEO. I've removed some of the sections including a bit about the company offering insurance but not any more. I think we could still stand to lose the "Reviews" section. Testimonials belong on the company's site and those aren't very good ones anyway. Everybody can see right through them - it's not the publications saying those things, its the company owner who has been quoted by the publication. The fact that it appears in the introduction rather than the body of the interview doesn't suddenly make it an "endorsement". Anyway, I think it's probably at the point where deletion is no longer necessary but I'd appreciate DGG's thoughts (and of course yours Frieda Beamy).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel a little guilty in that my comments drew user:Frieda Beamy here (who I think is trying to do the right thing) for a verbal beating. Though it is this trial by fire that often helps any editor develop. I would be happy to work on this page to bring it into acceptable standards, but only if Frieda is comfortable with it. I imagine a stub might be appropriate here. I think how an idea for a company was conceived is actually a crucial part of an article, but often these stories turn out to be advocacy promoting the concept and its value. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - having had a proper chance to look over the sources again I think it probably gets over the line. Frieda Beamy seems to have happily accepted edits by others and has readily accepted guidance and advice from both DGG and CorporateM in various forums. We can probably build on what we have there given the new-found sense of camaraderie.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on founding stories in general How the idea for an organization was conceived can be relevant comment if it is either based on some evidence other than what the founders said to their press agent, or is widely reported as a matter of history of  legend. Otherwise it's a dubious reconstruction or invention or platitude. At it's worst, it amounts to "I think I saw an opportunity to make money" (which is always the case for a commercial company), or "We saw an unmet need in society" for the typical NGO.  It's inclusion in an article where there is little other material serves the purpose of providing content when there otherwise would be nothing to report.   (I feel similarly about details of funding--funding is a basic part of company history, but the exact details are rarely of general interest, unless the company is famous. Ittoo can often serve the purpose of providing content when there is nothing much else.) Organizations are notable because of what they accomplish. and this is where the emphasis should be.   DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I continue to think the article isstill too promotional. The founders claim of having no complaints at all is so extraordinary that it cannot be included based on his own word to an interviewer, yet it is still there. The nature of the article remains not 'what the company does" but "why the company is good"--such an article is promotional: it's what the company chooses to say about itself. . Readers want to know what it does, and will decide themselves on its merits, It might be acceptable stubbified, but this has not yet been stubbified. The wording has been improved, but not the basic content or orientation. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete In my opinion, this should have been speedily deleted as spam, per DGG.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the Mother Jones Mother Earth News piece is clearly press-release blather. EEng (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would not acknowledge Mother Jones Mother Earth News as an RS based on your opinion of one of its articles. And DGG didn't say it should have been deleted, and even if it's spam, that is not a reason to delete. We made good progress so far and have a good agreement that the subject is notable and the issue has moved on to fixing content. I will work with you on content, but the RS say what they say and I wouldn't second-guess their editorial boards. I would like to have time to add some more sources since they're out there but I don't have them assembled right now. Anyone can edit. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I said Mother Jones instead of Mother Earth News. Anyway, assuming MEN is indeed a RS (I don't know) even an RS often publishes puff-pieces that are obviously rehashes of press releases, and this is one. Please point to the single strongest source in the article in terms of depth of coverage and independence, and we'll go from there. (so far I'm not seeing anything with either depth or independence.) EEng (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it wrong too. Mother Earth isn't cited as often, but almost 200 times here. Why are we suddenly framing the debate on one source? I haven't known you to debate rhetorically and I don't know what good it would do for me to claim I know which is the best source (excluding the self and gov sources). I also had the Spanish efficiency text No Somos Hormigas, but that was only a mention in a table so you might not count it toward significance. But each of these made an independent editorial decision to run significant reliable material. Now we don't need to do this dance, where the second player comes back and tells the first why the second thinks each of the above are unreliable. Why don't we skip to the end and decide whether we should stub, seek new sources, userfy, move to Richard Obousy, or work out some other consensus? Frieda Beamy (talk) :50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Courier Magazine: industry periodical. Masthead.
 * BusinessDay stuff.co.nz: an official blog from Fairfax Media.
 * Discovery News: mainstream tech news source.
 * Yahoo!: mainstream news source. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
 * CleanTechnica: eco blog; only used for support.
 * Mother Earth News: mainstream eco news periodical.
 * Malaysia Sun (twice): mainstream regional news periodical. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
 * Central Lift Maintenance Group: transportation industry blog that reprinted the article also in Malaysia Sun.
 * Your repeated references like "possibly a press release, but passed editorial review" show you don't understand the concept of notability at all. See WP:GNG: ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases...' Point to even one source that doesn't fall afoul of that exclusion. EEng (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All of them. It's not just a press release if independent reliable sources publish it. In a couple cases there is evidence that the editors took responsibility for text that matches an identifiable press release, but the majority of sources independently decided to run stories about the subject on their own responsibility. It's not our job to decide which (if any) were initiated by the subject calling up the source and which were the other way round. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. When a source runs a press release, they do so in the knowledge that readers will recognize it for what it is and not mistake it for hard reporting. You need to learn to make that distinction yourself. An industry magazine giving courtesy exposure to a CEO's puff quotes isn't independent coverage. EEng (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in footnotes. Arguments about an alleged promotional tone are to be resolved through the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (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.