Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogfoot (South Africa) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Frogfoot (South Africa)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Which pretty much sums up the references in this article. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - 3 reputable sources from different well know news outlets are provided including IOL (Independent Online) and MyBroadband and News24 as well as multiple ISPs websites. News24,IOL, mybroadband, George Herald. TapticInfo (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the reasons for deletion above. We're not looking for mentions or "press release" reporting or advertorials which appear in "reputable sources". We need the *content* to meet a standard too. Looking at the links you've provided:
 * News24 (which is the same article as this on netwerk24) is entirely based on a company announcement (even says it in the first sentence). But even if you missed that, there's more than a few other obvious signs. For example the article has no accredited/named "journalist" which is often the case when the information/article was provided from an external source. Also, the photo is "supplied". But more than anything else (even the promotional language and obvious sales talk), the last sentence encourages readers to check out to see if "your area is part of the Frogfoot FTTH network". This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND


 * Comment - News24 owns Netwerk24, it’s just a translated article in Afrikaans. TapticInfo (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * IOL reference is also entire based on an announcement/press release. It even says it - the announcement was made by the Head of Sales and Marketing. The "journalist" is listed as "supplied". THere is also nothing *about the company* in this article. So fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
 * mybroadband reference also has a big clue in the article text where it says "MyBroadband spoke to Frogfoot head of sales" who provided a list of all the rollout areas. There's nothing in the article that wasn't provided by the company or their execs so also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Georgeherald reference helpfully marks the article as an advertorial. So fails WP:ORGIND.
 * If you find anything you believe meets NCORP, post it here and we can take a look.  HighKing++ 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - The ISP sources that TapticInfo refers to are purely promotional, as are the George Herald and News24. Not every company is notable and this one is not. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly they are not an ISP, Frogfoot is an infrastructure provider to over 100,000 customers nation wide. The notability is base on the fact that frogfoot is a well known brand locally and that the article is not written in an advertisement way rather to inform who they are. TapticInfo (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply From WP:ORGCRIT, notability for an organisation requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While the references you've supplied mention the subject they are either linked to the subject by being regurgitated press releases or advertorials. They do not supply "significant coverage". A mention is not significant coverage. Saying that the company is extending its network to George is not significant coverage. Providing lists of the packages offered it advertising, not significant coverage. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - references do not contain enough independent content and are either directly or indirectly based on the company's own marketing, fails WP:ORGIND and ultimately WP:NCORP. I completely agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources offered. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 8 August 2021 (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.