Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idomoo


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Idomoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete by all means as literally an advertisement not actually substantially contributed or changed by anyone else that wasn't an advertising-only account, and this is emphasized and symbolized by the sheer fact the information and sources are then only the company's own advertising or republished; there's nothing to sensibly suggest better if everything is blatant motivations of PR. SwisterTwister   talk  21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and the subject's only coverage is in press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles in TechCrunch, Reuters (written by staff, not a reprinted press release), and Venture Beat are not press releases. Satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have actually established a consensus here at AfD that TechCrunch and VentureBeat have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news, and we have also established that they will literally advertise anything about the company, therefore there are some speculative things suggesting it's likely "pay-for news", something churnalism emulates exactly; to be specific all of those contents in those 2 "articles" only advertise the words and information the company wants to say about itself, therefore because we have to question as it is about the independent and substance concerns, and then also if it's literally paid advertising, we cannot accept it.
 * Also, as noted, the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources, the history itself shows the advertising and we cannot simply ignore that as if it never existed, because the advertising concerns here largely outweigh any apparent benefits. SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "established a consensus here at AfD that [they] have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news." I hate to assume but I believe you mean that you and others believe these publications do so. However, my search of WP:RSN found nothing indicating that they are not reliable sources. In fact, I found comments that they do fact checking which is one of the biggest criteria for a source to be considered reliable. Here is also the ethics statement of VentureBeat which says they do fact check.
 * So let's say they do have a habit of passing off PR as journalism. I am very family with the term churnalism but neither would apply here. Both of these pieces are written by staff writers (one a senior writer and the other is an editor at large). There is no indication on either article that it is promoted or paid for as VentureBeat clearly marks native ads as sponsored content as does TechCrunch as indicated from this tag. Some sources actually do a good job of reporting news. That is why you have to look into these deeper. You also never said anything about Reuters.
 * Finally, when you state "the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources" it takes away from the credibility of your argument. Looking at the article, I agree that everything from the "Overview" section down needs to be removed or rewritten. You can easily remove that with one click. However, I am not sure how the introduction paragraph and the history section is advertising the company. Stating facts is simply stating facts. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And after removing everything We are left with one or two sentense entry on Encylopedia. Is that really a Wikipedia Content. It makes it Directory or PR host which merely such article even created. There is seriously nothing to write about such article on Wikipedia except a paragraph. If we go by GNC for one article, that might be covered by significant media. Wikipedia becomes News distribution network. If it is already covered there. Why you need to write same on an article just passing GNC? Where are the sustainable coverage? as is the case these days. Such articles and references are being misused to build Wikipedia Reputation by such companies. Eg.: Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed

And definitely as being Commercial media channel, publishing 1 articles for such company does not harm, as clearly influenced by company. because after that one article. The company disappear from press. It is not my guidelines as many think I am creating my own. It is by Wikipedia. News must be sustainable not just once. VentureBeat ethics written on their own website does not make it any better. Techcrunch and venture beat do publish as they are online media like many others, they need lots to publish "I mean every media need lots and lots to publish in media". being encyclopedic notable we need to do more. One Paragraph? Light2021 (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for sounding rude, but your writing is very illegible. I am unsure of much of what you are saying so I don't know how to respond. It sounds like you are unhappy with the notability guidelines which I completely understand. If that is the case, this is something you need to address there, not through AfD. You can nominate as many articles as you want for deletion but it will not change the guidelines for WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately I think quite a few - not all as some have been good and I even supported your recommendation on those - of your mass deletion recommendations fall under WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But I am only one opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Every one has different ways of knowing and understanding things (I have read them though). Just doing my part what I understand the best. I welcome your thoughts and your contributions. thanks :) Light2021 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If that satisfies my assessment, few articles to read:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_means_impact
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bombardment
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Every_snowflake_is_unique
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_really_cares

Light2021 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Therefore, actually stating that a lot of this will need removal but that the mere fact sections such as overview and history stay, none of that actually establishes notability. To focus again with such sources like the ones above, we have explicitly stated before and found that when an article largely states only what the company itself would know such as its business plans and thoughts and the specific numbers of money it was either paid or given itself, that shows it's clearly PR advertising, essentially a republished PR piece for churnalism; and that's why, because such websites are not focusing with actual news, if the company simply states everything about its own advertising instead.
 * Comment - Yes, they simply state facts about the company, and none of that actually leads to any notability; as for the AfD consensus, we have established here, simply look at any recent company AfD closed as Delete, and you'll see we have explicitly seen obviously advertising articles and that's because those 2 websites clearly cater to anyone of the investing and client field who may be interested, therefore we cannot take those as being assuredly independent and not PR-focused; if this was NYT, that may be a different story, but those websites such as TechCrunch and VentureBeat clearly are PR-based, exactly how Forbes is now massively filled with PR advertising articles from either the businesspeople themselves or "special day contributor" (which essentially means it could be anyone from a company employee to a paid PR agent).
 * Once we start compromising with such blatant advertisements, simply because of an apparent "news article" with overspecifics about the company, we start damaging ourselves by then being vulnerable to "Hey, they accepted PR simply because it was masked by another website hosting it!"; for such cases, we have excellent pages such as WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT (and WP:IAR at best for still questionable cases). SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister  talk  05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP insufficient reliable in-depth independent coverage. MB 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Typical startup cruft. No indication of notability, sources are PR blogs and DB entries which just say "it exists". 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, see WP:ARTN. Critiquing the article is not a path to argue that the topic is not notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- corporate spam and A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been rewritten, advert tag removed.  There are lots of references to be found from around the world, just gotta do the search, and this is an easy name to search.  Founded in 2007, nine years seems a bit long to be claiming the company has not received attention "over a period of time".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 5 November 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.