Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndeJuice


 * 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. I find the policy- and guideline-based analysis of the sources, especially by SK2242, to be most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IndeJuice

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage of this in reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP. The author had contested the PROD with the reasoning that they had added significant coverage from multiple RS; however, none appear to be SIGCOV at all. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article passes WP:VERIFY with numerous primary sources citing 4 separate regulatory bodies of the UK Government - also goes to credibility under WP:SIGNIF. Three further reliable secondary sources of significance under WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP that are independent of the subject under WP:COMPANY. Article tone is WP:NEUTRAL and adheres to WP:MOS and WP:CS. GXM245 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let’s have a look at the references: Reference 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Company listings. Not independent SIGCOV Reference 4. Brief mention from a website writing promotional content. Not independent SIGCOV Reference 5. Application listing. Not independent or SIGCOV Reference 6. Two short paragraphs in an article about 5 different companies. Not SIGCOV. SK2242 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's take a closer look at the references in light of your comments. Reference 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 - there has been no dispute that these are validly used under WP:VERIFY as well as establishing WP:SIGNIF via multiple and distinct Government regulatory agency sources as mentioned in my comment above. At the same time, these references also show that the topic is not trivial as defined under WP:HASREFS. At no point has it been stated that these references are to be used for SIGCOV as your comment suggests. Reference 4 works towards both WP:SIGNIF and SIGCOV. There is a WP:SIGNIF claim that the company's holds the largest catalogue of respective products in the world - this is clearly "a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness" under WP:SIGNIF. This WP:SIGNIF claim is then supported with a reference from one of the world's leading business analytics providers satisfying WP:Reliability. There is no evidence to suggest that the reference is promotional - this particular SIGCOV is in the format of authoritative advice from the subject of the article about how they keep gross profit healthy with the world's largest inventory for its respective industry. Furthermore the content of the nominated article is clearly WP:NEUTRAL - this has not been disputed and remains valid. Reference 5 is of crucial importance as it references a significant industry-wide invention that has been verified, referenced and covered by an independent and reliable secondary source under WP:NOTE. This CNET reference certainly satisfies the requirement that "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability" - if it was not, CNET would not have published the SIGCOV as a reliable secondary source. Reference 6 is from a reputable news outlet that has been used 47 times on Wikipedia to establish SIGCOV. The article itself supports the significant claim made in the article about the enhanced level of health and safety that the subject company claims to have a proprietary process for and that has been verified to be trademark protected under WP:VERIFY with reference 3. WP:PERPOLICY states that "sufficient grounds for keeping an article" can be determined by "good argument citing policy". It is clear that this has been satisfied. In the event that the editor still disagrees for any SIGCOV or WP:NOTE reason, WP:GOODARG makes it clear that when it comes to further references, "you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found". A Google search proves such a strategy to be ineffective in this particular case. GXM245 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear not to be getting the basic facts here. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 are irrelevant for notability, 4 is still a brief mention from a promo website (it even says in the author description they write content to boost traffic), 5 is not independent because it is a listing written by IndeJuice themselves. I never said anything about the reliability of 6, but I pointed out a basic fact that the coverage is minor. 2 short paragraphs in an article about five different companies is not SIGCOV at all. I’ve also checked for more sources twice and found nothing. Zero. SK2242 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. Your reply appears to be an eager repetition of your previous comments and adds no new substance to the debate. I have already provided a detailed response for each of the points you have raised with relevant policy citations for each in my above response in accordance with WP:PERPOLICY. However, for the sake of clarity in regards to your final comment, a simple google of the subject name followed by “news” returns thousands of results. As such, even if we were to give the benefit of doubt to your original argument, your reply still fails to “demonstrate that none can ever likely be found” as clearly required by WP:GOODARG. It would seem much more likely that the article would just benefit from some community assistance if anything. In any event, happy to step aside at this stage in fear or repetition and rely on admin to resolve. Appreciate your time nonetheless. GXM245 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is you appear to misunderstand what you are citing. You repeatedly bring up SIGNIF but the SIGNIF page itself states it is a lower standard than notability, and the policy is only relevant when someone tries to A7/A9 speedy a page. I also have no idea what you mean by "thousands of results" from your search; if you are using regular search you will get thousands of results that have nothing to do with what you are looking for. Searching for the term IndeJuice in quote marks in Google News brings up five results, four are brief mentions and one is a government listing. As I have already pointed out twice, the CNET source is not secondary when it clearly is an app listing that states "by IndeJuice". SK2242 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your further comment. In your previous comment you stated that you were unable to locate any coverage on the subject of the article whatsoever - "I’ve also checked for more sources twice and found nothing". In the same sentence, you again reiterated “Zero.” You are now stating that not only are there thousands of results in Google, which I agree, to some degree can be expected with a company regulated under so many highly protected governmental agencies, but that even in the extremely narrow Google News feature you were able to locate 5 more sources (that I have not cited) referencing the subject. With the entirety of your argument relying on SIGCOV, you have demonstrated the complete opposite of WP:GOODARG that clearly states that to form a valid argument for deletion you must “demonstrate that none can ever likely be found”. You have just found 5 sources after saying that you did not find any - “Zero” - or in the words of WP:POLICY, your objection is flawed as your “view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A” “. Not only this, but throughout each of your singular objections you have not once disputed the important arguments I have presented in support of the article under WP:GOODARG, WP:VERIFY, WP:SIGNIF, WP:NCORP, WP:COMPANY, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:MOS, WP:CS, WP:HASREFS, WP:Reliability, WP:NOTE or WP:PERPOLICY as there is simply nothing to object on any of those policy grounds. Each of these policies are of fundamental importance to the community and are core to “our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia” as explained in WP:POLICY. In light of this, I have not made a single argument without citing a corresponding WP policy. On the other hand, you have just refuted your own sole argument centred around SIGCOV in the inherent contradiction of your findings. I assure you that I understand and greatly respect your contribution, but you have presented a fundamentally flawed argument by undermining the logical validity of the very point you have attempted to present. At this stage, I believe it is safer to allow an admin to come to their own conclusion. GXM245 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the facts here? For an article to exist it should be notable. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Zero significant coverage in the article or on google. Mentions aren’t significant coverage. Primary listings aren’t significant coverage. Once again you don’t know what you are citing. This is my last reply to you because this is going round in circles. SK2242 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your final reply. I totally agree with the last sentence of your reply i.e. that this is now best placed for an admin as I had anticipated and suggested in both of my previous replies when the logical fallacies surrounding your singular argument became clear. Nevertheless, for the sake of completion, you have asked "What are the facts here?" It is a fact that you continue to hold two contradictory opinions for the sole premise upon which your singular argument is based and that you have entirely failed to address this. You have also provided no clarity on what appears to be your own interpretation of SIGCOV, that you have based your entire argument on, and the criteria for which seems to change with each reply rather than being based on a solid policy-led interpretation that I have provided by citing multiple WP polices directly addressing that exact concern. In this regard, you have again failed to show any problems or concerns surrounding my exclusively policy-based arguments in support of the subject. Your only comment seems to concede that the article should not be considered for A7/A9 speedy deletion, yet you continue to argue for its deletion in this debate. This indicates that you are unsure of your own opinion - a position that is only further supported by the logical contradictions in your findings of more reliable sources that you simultaneously claim you have found yet do not exist. I wish you all the best and thank you again for your participation in the debate. GXM245 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Garden-variety WP:CORPSPAM that fails WP:NORG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per GXM245's argument. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the sourcing is significant coverage? SK2242 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , of course, I do. There's really nothing wrong with agreeing with GXM245's views. So, don't bother arguing with me. I'm not gonna waste my time in arguing with anyone who questions my views. My keep stands no matter what. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing, I am politely asking. Tone it down. SK2242 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Just a recap for editors: Reference 1 (domains.google.com) - Company listing, not independent Reference 2 (find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent Reference 3 (trademarks.ipo.gov.uk) - Trademark listing, not independent Reference 4 (databox.com) - Brief mention in a promo content site, likely not independent and not significant coverage Reference 5 (download.cnet.com) - Not a CNET news article, but an application listing that contains a paragraph from IndeJuice themselves, not independent Reference 6 (ventsmagazine.com) - 2 short paragraphs in a news article about five different companies, independent but not significant coverage Reference 7 (register.fca.org.uk) - Company listing, not independent Reference 8 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent Reference 9 (gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent Reference 10 (gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent Additionally, no reliable independent sources providing significant coverage are found in several BEFORE searches. In conclusion, this is a definite failure of WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, I agree. The editors claiming otherwise have standards of reliability/notability that don't seem to match with the ones accepted by the community. Hopefully closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the sources provide significant, independent coverage. I reserve judgment on whether it meets the level of spam, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia either way. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 10:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Saying the article passes GNG is not enough as per the RfC at WP:N which refers explicitly to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. The Keep !voters above need to point to references that meet NCORP. q HighKing++ 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete it's easy to find references with no significant coverage for subjects on the very fringes of notability. SK2242 clearly shows how none of the coverage actually establishes notability. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no evidence that this passes NCORP ; no significant detail or focus on this company from sources that are truly independent Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:24, 13 February 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.