Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Fun


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Fun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are just routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. Some  articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith new editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think that is what we want here. It's time to remove the bad examples.  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The basic name of this company may make source searching difficult. I have found the following source below, which provides in-depth coverage. North America1000 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an interview with their exec., published in a section called "Business Club", which is a newsletter/blog that one can become a "member" of. It's an advertorial. I think its time we stoped counting interviews with the ceo as evidence for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's often standard practice for reporters for reliable news sources to actually speak with people involved in the companies they report upon. It would be biased for them not to. The Telegraph article example I posted above has a decent amount of background coverage about the company. Also "joining" The Telegraph's Business Club only means that those that "join" will receive a newsletter from The Telegraph (see this link). It does not appear at all that anyone can write anything and The Telegraph will automatically publish it, just from joining to receive a newsletter. Also per this source, the author of The Telegraph article, James Hurley, was an editor for both of The Telegraph newspapers for over three years, and when comparing the dates of these respective articles, it appears quite likely that Hurley was an editor at the time the source I provided above was published. Also, by referring to the article as an advertorial, you imply that the Mobile Fun paid The Telegraph to publish the article. However, such assertions are best proven with actual evidence. For example, the article does not state anywhere "paid content", "paid advertisement", or the like. Actual advertorials often have such types of "paid content" disclaimers, in order to maintain journalistic objectivity. No offense, but relative to my research about the source and author, I find the statement "it's an advertorial" to be unconvincing, particularly relative to the definition of what an advertorial actually comprises. I'm also skeptical of the notion that The Telegraph was compensated by the company to publish the article. I may not volunteer more of my time to further research this company, so perhaps the article will simply be deleted regardless of source availability, since it's described in part as promotional. North America1000 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I belive that the above comment presents the coverage as "investigative journalism" while in fact this appears to be uncritical coverage based on the interview with the CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I belive that the above comment presents the coverage as "investigative journalism" while in fact this appears to be uncritical coverage based on the interview with the CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * not all coi involves money. I'd suspect some is quid pro quo journalism. You give me something interesting, and I'' print it as you would like it. Just an hypothesis, and we  can make many.  I judge by the content, which I can actually see.  One of the dangers of WP is the uncritical acceptance of sources.  Material worded like advertising is intrinsically unreliable, no matter where it occurs. If I see it anywhere, I know not to believe it, or take it seriously for any purpose, except to say what the writer intended to say or let be said in his name. --I cannot determine his purpose.  DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources do not help to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The Telegraph source, for example, for the vast majority quotes an employee. This is essentially an indirect reprint of their words (stuff the company is talking about itself). I would have liked to see some better sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in this article in The Telegraph and this article in the Birmingham Post. I agree with Northamerica1000 that it is good journalistic practice to interview of their articles' subjects. I also agree the sources are not promotionally written. There is sufficient non-interview coverage about the company to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I concur with the nomination in that there's advertising in both the information and sources and, looking at the supposed "news" article above simply finds it matching with the same exact advertising information shown and emulated in the deletion nomination, especially since the link then goes to list company quotes and other triviality hence it's enough to confirm as PR and therefore delete. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertorial backed largely by churnalism. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- strictly promotional content for an unremarkable business. Sources are weak as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Pure promotional nonsense. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete promotion of a non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  07:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:31, 20 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.