Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HousingAnywhere (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. czar 08:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

HousingAnywhere
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We've established before that any means of promotion is an immediate violation of WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its relevant sections WP:Not a webhost, WP:Promotion, WP:Not advocacy, WP:Not newspaper and WP:Not catalog (all and any apply), and an article that has any of this shouldn't and can't be considered differently. Take the emphasized promotionalism by a clear COI account, recently, which is of course an immediate violation of WP:Terms of Use, given employees or connected are given no exceptions, since there was in fact a company account previously. Take the sources: It's one thing for there to be a lot of publicity or, as some may say, "importance", but importance is not what classifies notability here, instead it's major independent significant news as by WP:Notability and I know the few sources here aren't (1 is a "Who Are We?" and 2-6 are company-stamped announcements). Next, as if there wasn't enough concern, the last 2 "Keep" voters at the AfD were now-banned users with a history of undisclosed contributing, yet another Terms of Use violation. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 1 is a startup-focused publication, therefore indiscriminate because WP:CORP says other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
 * Source 2, 4, 10 and 12 are a clearly labeled "company profile"
 * Source 3 is an announcement: "His announcement", "he spotted the opportunity", "he says", "he used", "his team", "he had financed", "after his graduation", "he raised $190,000" (hardly noteworthy for Wikipedia here, since anyone could easily obtain that with the relevant attention), "him with his first cash flow" and "the company works with" before the article ends.
 * Source 5 is a Portuguese announcement in a local paper
 * Source 6 is a Spanish announcement (both of these are conveniently worded like the same PR agent was employed)
 * Source 7 is about relevant students services as is Source 8
 * Source 9 is, as conveyed there, a France-targeted announcement; as a note, three immediate announcements in overseas websites is hardly coverage, if each one of them carry the company's own liking on itself
 * Source 11 is an event listing, which carries basically the same publicity initiatives as before
 * Source 13 is now a Dutch-targeted announcement
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Write a combination article There's a solution for situations like this which simultaneous can give a true NPOV presentation of whatever encyclopedic information there is, and remove promotional writing and those who want to do promotional writing from WP. It's a key provision of the widely misused WP:GNG, that even passing GNG does not guarantee an article, quite apart from the other  provisions of NOT : sometimes related topics are best covered by merging. As the article we are discussing says : "The international housing platform has direct competitors also focusing on the international student accommodation market, such as Uniplaces and Student.com."   The focus of promotional contributors on having a separate page is due to Google: if there is a separate article, Google will now  put the WP article on the sidebar. If it is not a separate page, but a section, they do not. But this is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. If we deal with this information in sections, we not only put related information together in a way useful to the reader without repeating introductory material, we leave much less opportunity for promotional editing -- which nowadays, is ususuallly undeclared paid editing.   DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Article is written with promotional content and sources do not seem reliable. Suggestion revising with neutral, factual language supported by credible third-party sources.ctonih25

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just an advertisement based largely on WP:SPIP sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2017 (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.