Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crons


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Crons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My PROD was removed with the sole basis that the listed source is enough but I examined these and I found nothing but company-supplied information, PR and trivial coverage, and my own searches at Pittsburgh newspapers, Forbes (this one has become PR-navigated as it is), NewYorkTimes and I'll note that the one source listed as NYT is simply a profile focusing with him instead and his career and background, it's not substantial coverage about the company, and this article is showing the classic signs of simply being part of a PR campaign. I'll note this was G11 speedy deleted once before as it is. There is no inherited notability from its local partnerships and business activities as several companies have or have had this but it's not an automatic convincing for an article, especially if there are PR intentions here, which this one has, therefore I would not have accepted from AfC if there was such an insinuation of it. SwisterTwister  talk  04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below are some sources. North America1000 04:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 * Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
 * The New York Times
 * Forbes
 * ''The Huffington Post (has three paragraphs of non-interview content in the lead)


 * Actually looking athe Forbes', it's another of their blog entries. I know you know better than that, so this suggests you did a linkdump rather than looking at them - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Regarding the Forbes source I posted above, such sources are allowed to be used, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Also note that the article is written by a Forbes staff writer (it states "Forbes Staff"). I read the article before posting it here. Please assume good faith. North America1000 07:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not good evidence of notability, and AGF does not mean assuming you have done something you strongly appear not to have done - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice the tick mark in the Forbes article next to where it states " Forbes Staff ", right after the author's name. It is possible that the tick mark is there to indicate that the writer is verified by Forbes as a staff writer. I'm not sure why you missed that the article is attributed to a staff writer, but it's right there in plain English. Sorry, but you come across as dismissive, as though if you're looking for a way to disqualify sources from the start, to the point that you may be overlooking matters and resorting to making ad hominen arguments instead. However, I hope I'm wrong, and hope that you can try to assume good faith in the future after this discussion has concluded. I admit that the Forbes article is short, but it does provide some coverage, and be sure to also listen to the 4:44 length video interview that accompanies the article. North America1000 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice this: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. There is little journalistic oversight and no fact checking. Forbes/sites are hardly used for supporting facts, much less notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This comes across as a bit grey, the contributor is a staff writer, but it has this disclaimer. As such, in the interest of fairness, I have struck the Forbes article. North America1000 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See below in the box for some source examples. I read the sources too. North America1000 10:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply suggesting Keep because the sources were supposedly examined is not the same thing in that my nominations actually mentioned these sources as it is, and as for the ones not mention, they still apply in the listed concerns, for example, the HuffPost unsurprisingly is an interview from start to finish, and the man himself advertises the company, so that one is certainly not convincing, substantial or significant. Simply existing as a news source is not the same thing as convincing especially if it's in fact simply republished PR. The Forbes is still trivial and my analysis above it covers it since it's simply a fluff-puff about its company partnerships, in an entire 3 paragraph thin "article", so that's certainly not substance if there was hardly journalism effprts to begin with. SwisterTwister   talk  15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I read the sources, rather than "supposedly" or "...done something you strongly appear not to have done". These types of WP:ASPERSIONS are problematic, quite impolite and also inappropriate; they go against the grain of working collegially with others in the spirit of building an encyclopedia. If others don't agree with the depth of coverage in the sources I provided, that's just fine, but it's quite poor and sophomoric to second guess whether or not a person read them. I am an administrator on English Wikipedia and I would never post any commentary intended to be misleading, ever. Period. Also, my keep !vote stands. North America1000 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: this company appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on this New York Times piece, which provides WP:SIGCOV, as well as this USA Today piece and this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the USA Today source. I didn't find that one. North America1000 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'll note again that the sources listed above are the same exact ones listed before, and my nomination analysis actually mentions them and, then as for the USAToday, it's simply a few thin paragraphs that never actually focus with the company itself, they're simply a mere tossed few sentences, so it's not at all close to substance or convincing. If that's the best there is, it only actually emphasizes the needs for deletion since, we have as it is the advertising state of mind and intents, so actually listing other sources of the sort, actually make "improvements" non-existent and contrary to the listed concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below are more sources (in addition to those I posted above) that provide coverage about Crons. More evidence that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Former Pitt player's apparel company takes aim at the nutrition bar market". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * "West View company serves 100-pound snack at mission". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
 * "Come ready: Pat Cavanaugh shapes Crons around his own story". Smart Business.


 * Comment - The above sources are still thin and unconvincing in that they are still focus with company quotes and other information only the company itself would, especially since their own activities are focused in those articles. SwisterTwister   talk  19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – To consolidate, below are the sources I am basing my keep !vote above upon. North America1000 21:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 * Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
 * The New York Times
 * "Former Pitt player's apparel company takes aim at the nutrition bar market". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
 * "West View company serves 100-pound snack at mission". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
 * "Come ready: Pat Cavanaugh shapes Crons around his own story". Smart Business.
 * ''The Huffington Post (per non-interview content in the lead)
 * Comment - These links above are in fact the same ones mentioned earlier, so if this is honestly the best that could be found, it actually shows how serious this article is with not having actual convincing coverage, so simply repeating them (let alone with no actual anaylsis) also speaks for itself. SwisterTwister   talk  23:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- typical "corporate spam": a cross between an investor prospectus and a product brochure. Sources offered above are local (Post Gazette), non RS (triblive.com, HuffPo) and / or offer trivial mentions / interviews. Nothing to build out an encyclopedia article from. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Article created by Special:Contributions/ComeReady with no other contributions, so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article as it violates the core principal that the content is created by volunteer editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To then note, examining the earlier comments (now since removed from this currently set nomination) in the history logs, the Keep votes have not at all actually considered the damning affects accepting such an advertisement can cause, and instead, they have literally simply suggested "Hey, there's sources!" yet there's been specific analysis about the listed sources. Once we start choosing to completely push the deletion of advertisements aside, it shows we are finally damned as an encyclopedia which can be taken seriously, everything from this article and its involved accounts have shown it was one thing and that is paid advertising, and no one has actually given a damn to fix it, therefore if we're going to simply keep because PR sources have been listed, that is self-explanatory, something of which (the fact of paid advertising and the signs suggesting and showing it) the Keep votes have not mentioned or considered at all. It troubles the encyclopedia considerably when there have been analyses showing the sources are PR and showing explicitly how, where and why, yet additional PR sources are listed, this shows how not only is there literally nothing else better than PR, it's so blatant. SwisterTwister   talk  23:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Agree with Delete discussion. Nothing is here. Except promotions and promotions. Light2021 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the multiple in-depth reliable sources found by Northamerica1000. These are more than sufficient to meet the notability threshold per WP:GNG. Notability coupled with the WP:POTENTIAL for article improvement suggests keeping the article. Regarding the discussion here and at other recent corporate AfDs, I explicitly reject the assertion that all business journalism is PR bunk. All reliable sources have potential context and framing issues and should be considered on a case by case basis. There are enough basic uncontroversial facts to glean from the RS above to write a short reasonably neutral article on the subject. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets ORGDEPTH with the sources by NorthAmerica. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the mentions are trivial, and insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as the coverage does not address the topic directly and in detail. For example, the USA Today coverage is largely a name check around the company's promotional campaign:
 * "While Crons is mostly a high school brand, the high-profile exposure in the NCAA tournament could help it score more college clients."
 * Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 14 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.