Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation Works


 * 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   no consensus. As much as I think this article should be deleted, after four relistings it is quite clear that a consensus cannot be reached. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Innovation Works

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company / organisation. No refs in article and nothing obvious in google. This appears to be a completely separate entity to the similarly unreferenced EADS Innovation Works. PROD repeatedly removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The twenty some refs I added were reverted by Piandcompany for an unspecified reason (marked as a "minor" change). I removed PROD once in accordance with the message in the PROD, stating that once issues had been addressed it can be deleted without discussion by anyone, including the creator. Cyounkins (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. PROD was removed once and modified once. I have restored what looks to be the only in-depth independent ref removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH entirely. Its existence is verified mostly in unreliable sources; its notability is not. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 There are easily located sources from very reliable independent sources, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times.
 * Strong Keep Innovation Works is a well established technology innovation proponent in Pittsburgh and southeastern Pennsylvania.

Here are two articles from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the leading Pittsburgh daily newspaper: Here are four articles from the Pittsburgh Business Times:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Here is another business journal article:
 * 

This article should have these reliable sources added, with information from the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.g20pittsburghsummit.org/transformation-city/information-communications-technology/innovation-works/ is a blurb almost certain supplied by the company, it fails the independence requirements. http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/10/07/top-7-innovation-works-plsg-investments.html http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2012/09/14/top-5-innovation-works-plsg-investments.html and http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2012/05/24/slideshow-scenes-from-innovation.html contain no in depth coverage. That leaves us with three articles which are all local, one of which is niche and none of which contain 'hard questions' Looks like WP:ROUTINE and of local interest to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as routine at all. Routine is things that get coverage no matter what, like reviewing restaurants, not coverage of businesses in detail like that.   D r e a m Focus  13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete None of these "sources" apply, it's just press releases etc.. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bizjournal is nothing but press releases. Take time to look at the other sources found though please.   D r e a m Focus  13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Highbeam shows ample results for "Innovation Works" but they are all about an ex-Google executive in China, using that name for his business creation platform.  Enough coverage of that about for its own separate article I believe, should anyone want to bother making it.   D r e a m Focus  17:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This company gets ample coverage such as this .  D r e a m Focus  17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For those without access to highbeam, the that same article is at http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06109/683141-96.stm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. Non-notable. Google searches turned up nothing except routine and tangential coverage in local newspapers, most of which isn't real investigative journalism anyway, but lazy-assed "armchair journalism" based primarily, if not entirely, on press releases from the company itself. I could find no sign that substantial coverage might exist in multiple reliable independent sources with a reach greater than the immediate local community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this source? Do you not consider that significant coverage?   D r e a m Focus  13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - I'm seeing some coverage but I'm not really convinced it goes beyond local coverage of a local initiative/enterprise. There are lots of seed funding initiatives and business "start-up" support programs - almost every State Government has something similar (even here in my native Australia). I'm not really convinced by the argument that it gains notability from the businesses it has supported. So we need to rely on coverage to substantiate a pass against WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't think we're there yet. As far as I'm concerned, we would probably need to see some national coverage or inter-state coverage to substantiate that this is a program notable beyond the borders of a particular region, as distinct from the myriad programs like it. Stalwart 111  01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the General Notability Guideline   Th e S te ve   23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep: Sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. 108.21.12.231 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to fail WP:CORP, which is slightly more strict than WP:N because trading corporations are prone to promote, making the required independence of sources suspect.  http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06109/683141-96.stm is a good start, but not enough. The article is missing relevance to other mainspace articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2012 (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.