Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICracked


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ICracked

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted once before so I would suggest Salting considering this is still an advertisement as it once was, my own searches are simply finding published-republished PR, everything simply focuses with what the company would say about itself, and not what an encyclopedia actually needs. Being list at the Forbes list included was simply a mere listing and contributes nothing but PR since it basically means "this company is not yet notable, but keep watching it and help it get there". I'll note this was literally restarted 2 years after the first deletion by an advertising-only account and there have been no other substantial contributing visitors to this at all. SwisterTwister  talk  04:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Below are some sources that provide significant coverage about the topic. North America1000 04:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * USA Today
 * CNBC
 * Cosmopolitan
 * CNET
 * CNET
 * CNET
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Gizmodo
 * Business Insider
 * Inc.
 * Daily Mail
 * The Huffington Post
 * Mashable
 * Mashable
 * Fast Company
 * TechCrunch
 * Comment - What all of these share in common is the fact they all either show you how the company works either by the publication listing it or the company showing it themselves, which can be said to be supposedly significant but not quite so for convincing notability here, and some of these not only then contain interviewed information, but they then contain questionable puffery such as "It comes to you!", "Give us your phones, says company!" or "It fixes it in minutes!" which may be common for news media, but it also suggests advertising intentions, and the fact some of these are never far from becoming PR and unsubstantial, it makes it questionable; something else is the fact of the weight of these contents which, when put aside the interviewed information or general business information about the company, it's not saying a lot including for a convincing article. As I continued to look at these, it simply shows the thin amounts of thinly-sorted paragraphs, suggesting it was not an article taken seriously, though perhaps it's better if emphasizing heavier PR would've made it worse, but still it was not substantial enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Below are some more sources. North America1000 05:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Christian Science Monitor
 * The Unauthorized Guide to iPhone, iPad, and iPod Repair. Que Publishing. pp 39-40.
 * Fox 6 news
 * The Washington Post
 * TechRepublic
 * Daily Star
 * Yahoo! Tech. (shorter article) Quote: "This is not an ad; I don’t know anybody at iCracked, and they had no idea I planned to write up my experience."
 * Keep: per ample sources found by NorthAmerica. As for the complaint that these sources only "show you how the company works", yes, that's what WP:SIGCOV is--showing and telling us about a company and how it works. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I provided in the two boxes above for examples. North America1000 05:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact the sources are now becoming local TV news station articles show how bare the quality of news actually is, because my concerns still apply in that the few sources there are above are then actually mere paragraphs and then how-to guides, that's not the substance we actually need. As for the comment of "how it works", of course it's not then convincing for an article because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or collection of it. The WashingtonPost is another example where it has a questionable "It will help you fix it!" (PR), these are all simply advertising the company and how it can be used, that comes with nearly any other company and therefore with they simply showing the company works (because that's what it in fact is!), it's not the convincing substance we need, because in that case, all of the listed sources in the article are PR and PR-like sources, simply showing what the company would also say about itself also. The Yahoo! Tech article, although supposedly claimed to not be connected, still in fact goes to specifics about what he got and the services that came with it, that's not something we accept for substance here, and nor should we. The BusinessInsider article is another example where it actually largely focuses with the subject of phones and technology instead of actual substance, and it actually goes to then state about photos showing how the phones looked, until the article literally ends with that.... The fact what's listed at the current article as it is when I nominated it, it focuses with things only the company would care to mention such as its PR awards and accomplishments, specifics about its business and financials, by actually keeping this, we're keeping an advertisement that was clearly contributed to by SPA accounts, therefore it's not something to take lightly by simply tossing some sources and expecting it's enough. Once we become a PR webhost as is this current article (which actually goes to specify numbers and company operations information), we're damned as a serious encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  06:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - I went through that REFBOMB and find it entirely unconvincing per SwisterTwister - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Northamerica1000 and Safehaven86.Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  Be a guest 10:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. The article seems to be written like a complete advertisement to me. There might be sources over the internet but it's against the spirit of wikipedia to allow these type of PR advertisement disguised as articles. Badnaam (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Promotional tone can often be easily addressed by copy editing the article, rather than deleting it in entirety. North America1000 03:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. promotional tone can sometimes be fixed by editing the article. In this case, there would be nothing substantial left besides the mere existence of the company. There would be no reliable refs that show notability -- the WSJ source lists them as one of many, the CR, mentions their instruction video as one of many. All the other sources are press releases. We do have a problem with judging notability  of companies by the standard of GNG: it has become clear that there are so very few actually independent sources that only the truly famous companies can be shown notable by GNG. Either we limit our coverage to them, or we adopt alternative criteria, such as size and market share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources are not satisfactory for indicating notability - they are unconvincing. For one thing these are not objective reporting that is independent of the subject. Quoting the CEO or other senior executives, or sharing a personal experience as happens here, and relying on only the company personnel as sources for a number of articles contravene WP:CORPDEPTH. So does a step by step guide on how to get your phone fixed - as in so what? - besides contravening GNG.


 * Just because published articles are informational does not mean the topic or subtopic is notable because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or diary. Big numbers, or arbitrary quantities, such as in this article which says, "5,000 'iTechs' by the end of the calendar year, and [intend] to add 10,000 additional 'iTechs" in 2016'" in 10 countries - do not indicate notability per WP:BIG. And notice it is the CEO being interviewed - this is WP:PROMO. This is not covering a significant impact, such as correlating to an impact on the economy or causing a shift in culture.


 * I agree with User:DGG - only the truly famous companies that cause cultural shifts on a national or global scale actually receive independent significant coverage. The rest use press releases, re-packaged PR, routine announcements in the press, all of which have no value for determining notability. This is the same as covering what a plumber named Joe does. Is this notable? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page that is being used for promotion. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH but simply illustrate that the company exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:31, 31 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.