Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Goo


 * 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. HighKing's in-depth analysis of sources shows that they do not meet WP:ORGCRIT and therefore do not support a claim of notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Green Goo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Goo Stats )

This topic doesn't have mention media mentions in highly reliable source Random 456576798 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Random 456576798 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If deleted, should it be redirected to Green slime or elsewhere as a synonym? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Just a pointless article Dreamanderson (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations to the Denver Post, Forbes and the local ABC and Fox affiliates are in the article; the first three have significant coverage of the company (I cannot check the Fox one because of GDPR). Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to me. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) (Edited 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC), see reply below.)  Delete per  below: the sources don't meet the requirements for WP:NCORP. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk)</b> 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The forbes' article is from contributor, hence can't be used in Wikipedia as per community guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and beside denver post, local ABC and fox affiliates are also not considered as reliable source Random 456576798 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the point about Forbes, you're right. Could you expand on why you don't consider the other sources reliable? <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've provided reasoning for each reference below. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, you make good points. Have changed my !vote. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Page does have good coverage on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2115:C674:0:0:16D6:E0AD (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)  — 2409:4052:2115:C674:0:0:16D6:E0AD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Articles are reliable and company got enough coverage. I will suggest to make article better rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage appears sufficient (though mostly local, which is fine). Delete, based on User:HighKing's very good breakdown. Jlevi (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The reasons provided above miss the point. Getting "coverage" or that "coverage appears sufficient" does not address the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:NCORP, there must be multiple sources (at least two) of 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. Looking at the references:
 * This from The Denver Post is based on information provided by the company and contains quotes from the company executives. It contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. The "story" published on the company can be found in a range of stories in different websites such as this company profile on Range.me and this story on Inventors Digest. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * I cannot find mention of the company in the referenced article in Global Traveler but the company gets a mention-in-passing in this article. No company details, not significant coverage, no Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
 * The Forbes reference fails WP:RS as it considered a blog post. Even if it wasn't, it is churnalism and relies entirely on an interview with the founder, failing WP:ORGIND
 * This from Investors Digest (as I noted above) relies on information provided by the company to a range of different publications, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Home Business Mag is also churnalism and is mostly a copy from their "About Us" page and the same information pack used by the other articles above with a sprinkling from one of the customers "Fresh Eggs Daily" who often promote Green Goo on their facebook page. No Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Luxe Beat is paid promotion by the company. It uses phrases like Once subscribed to GooRu, you will receive $100 worth of products for $29.97 as our "Thank You" for joining our cause for your first month. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from St. Louis Post Dispatch is a paid promotion (Ad) for their "Outdoors Travel Pack". It contains no information on the company at ll. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * This from CBS Denver is based on an interview with the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Times-Call is based on a company announcement and relies entirely on information provided by the cofounder and the company. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * None of the references meet the requirements for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any references that are OK for this purpose. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this highly in-depth breakdown. It gives me some important features to look for in future deletion discussions, and I appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out. Jlevi (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.