Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetReputation


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After discounting the views of the now blocked sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus here to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

NetReputation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable reputation management company. Fails WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management,  and Florida.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete PR spam sites, nothing for notability. The fact that many editors are involved and can only produce such low quality sources, is further proof how non-notable this is. I'm not staying tuned. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Agree, PR page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see: WP:NOTNEWS. Update: “Tampa Bay Times”, a city newspaper, does not change my opinion. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gentleman, Kierzek Oaktree b, I suggest you take a look twice. It's a fully good-balance article. due to former suggestions I made more positive article, than it was at start, cause formerly article was based only on company criticism around Leo Molloy's case. In order to evade only criticism I found some positive & neutral recognition sources and added them. If sources not good - delete them! GL HF Paranoya23 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Kierzek:
 * The Tampa Bay Times is the primary major newspaper for the Tampa Bay area (population 3+ million). It's won numerous Pulitzer Prizes. It created PolitiFact.com.
 * WP:NCORP requires reliable sources and discusses them in detail. There is no distinction made as to size of the publication. Our Reliable sources guideline and Verifiability policy do not require this, with.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, can somebody point me to an applicable Tampa Bay Times (TBT) article that works for WP:NCORP? The only TBT article I found just gave this company a paragraph in a much longer article. If that's all the local newspaper has given them, that's telling.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability passed by The Wired, Tampa Bay News and NZ-based mass media NZ Herald. This page is stub, subject known as a censorship organisation. Stay, cause many editors was involved. Stay tuned in further developing. Except weak refernces the page has a few good-reliable sources according to WP:ORGCRIT. — Note to closing admin: Paranoya23 (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. Paranoya23 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming you're referring to Wired (magazine). Can you link to a Wired article that covers this company? Sam Kuru (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the user is now blocked as a sock of several other commenters here, so I'll answer myself. There was a significant effort to add sources to the actions of other reputation management companies, but not this one. The wired article was written well before this company was even founded. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The section “Operations” part sounds promotional, but the rest can be keep. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge the Leo Molloy incident to online reputation management, a section of reputation management which could itself be split off to a separate article. Article creator has done a good job finding sources about ORM in general, but most of them don't mention this company, so I've merged most of that to online reputation management. That addresses User:Kaseng55's comment about the Operations section, but what remains is routine business coverage, press releases, and one interesting incident about a NZ businessman threatening to sue them. No prejudice against recreating the article in a few years, if they do start to get WP:SIGCOV with WP:CORPDEPTH in WP:RS. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging to online reputation management is not looking only good one solution because ORM will be overloaded with content size. If we put every censorship case in ORM, then it will be really overload. On my opinion, every "Streisand effect" case should has their separate placement on the Wikipedia. If u wanna connect this case to ORM - add a category. And I might be frustrated to lost the page on which I spent a lot of time. Boring company, but may on florida size they have some fame. Btw, lets keep that and leave the chance to extend content in further cases such as Molloy's. Thx Paranoya23 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No I'm not proposing to merge every controversial ORM company to ORM. I'm only saying that the single recent ORM controversy of this company doesn't warrant it having a separate article. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping to closing admin someone please, appreciate. Paranoya23 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Dubious about a lot of this and how it was created. They're not notable. Please removed from Wikipedia. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I cannot find a large number WP:SIRS sources on this subject. I'm concerned a merge might be UNDUE after reading the proposed target. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks eligible on WP:SIRS with 2 qualifying sources. Stub-class only, haven't chances to be upper class now. Seriy333 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This use was blocked as a sock of other editors that have commented here. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found one good, solid ref in the Business Observer, a Florida business publication. Other than that I found a zillion low-quality promotional articles planted by NetReputation. There very well could be something else in all the search engine hits but I stopped after 5 pages of unusable results.
 * This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I still vote for Keep, cause this page looks similar to my article destinus, where fine explains about industry operations. My opinion: notability here on local-fame & Molloy's scandal, not on the money only. Enough for stub-class. Seriy333 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Business Observer consist information about over $10 million revenue, no? Tired to check that. Seriy333 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts buddy --A. B.. As you granted Business Observer reliable source status in this discussion, so why you voted for deletion? "$10 million" argument is nonsence, won't even discuss it, sorry. Paranoya23 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist. As an aside, I've never seen service review sites considered a RS as far Wikipedia standards go as they are user-generated content that rarely receive any editorial oversight. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete At first I thought this would meet notability guidelines but most of the best sources talk about reputation management. Outside of press releases, we're left with the Tampa Bay list of local businesses, the Leo Molloy article, the IBT listicle and the Florida Business Observer which don't add up to WP:NCORPimo. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on Business Observer and Mirror Review. Bunch of service review sites have also written about them, such as Quick Sprout, Top Work Places. They also have a profile on Inc, which is reserved for Inc5000 honorees. Royal88888 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I included the review sites in my response because they appear to be independent and not based on user-generated content. These sites seem to have conducted thorough and independent reviews of companies. According to WP:GNGSC, reliable, independent, and secondary sources are required, and these review sites seem to fulfill these criteria. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, such as proof of user-generated reviews, it is reasonable to consider these review sites as suitable sources for establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.
 * According to this discussion, we have No Consensus decision currently. Seriy333 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A prematurely closed AfD ends up going to Deletion review, in theory a dispassionate discussion of the AfD's closure. In practice, it's often anything but a dispassionate discussion. That sort of drama wastes a lot of community time. Admins will relist to avoid such an outcome if possible.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Seriy333 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Royal88888, I don't have a good feeling about your mirrorreview.com ref; that page looks like a pay-to-play ref. The description on the Inc pages was written by NetReputation: "We fix negative Google search results. We have created exclusive partnerships…" The 2 review sites you referenced don't remotely meet our reliable sources requirement.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but we would not know that for sure. You have no evidence as such and I didnt see that site listed on WP:RSP, so that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. You also said "This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million." this kind of argument has no bearing on whether they would be notable or not. On the other hand Business Observer seems to be an excellent source and that alone would be enough for notability. Regarding the review sites, see my response further up. Royal88888 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal88888, I concur about the Business Observer as a reliable source as I noted earlier.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - The "Operations" section should be removed - no one cares about their operations lol. But the rest can be keep and extended. The article valid on WP:SIRS 3 times: NZ Herald, TBN, Business Observer. It is not enough? I don't know - not famous, but similar stub-class pages still exist and let's give newbie author the chance to extend it. Masckarpone (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This use was blocked as a sock of other editors that have commented here. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's a source assessment table with respect to WP:SIRS requirements. I believe I've included everything in the article and raised here. There are not any SIRS sources found yet. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment  How HZ Herald can be dependent to the NetReputation, which they criticize? I disagree, but appreciate your work on the WP:SIRS table. Take it logically, not personally please. Regarding rest, many independent? column results incorrectly. Masckarpone (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * SIRS: Be completely independent of the article subject. NZ Herald depends very heavily on quotes and attributed statements an executive employee (Net Reputation executive Ryan Sherman Jnr) of the subject: Sherman Jnr said his company’s strategy in trying to preserve the online reputation of a person charged or convicted of sexual assault would not be attempting to get online media articles taken down post-conviction. “Removal would not be the approach if Mr Molloy were the suspect in this case,” Sherman Jnr said. “We would manipulate the search engine using a branding campaign with high-end digital assets to suppress the information. That being said, we like to be proactive in situations like this. Of course, it was a stretch, but there were some clues on why I had my suspicions about Mr Molloy. If you look at the blurred-out pictures, his shoulders match the individual, and his name is also spoken about in multiple blog threads regarding this case. “Apologies that my suspicions were wrong this time around. We typically contact people who are actually in trouble versus playing guessing games as we did here.” Sherman Jnr said they had approached three individuals in relation to the Waitākere District Court sex assault case and all existing Net Reputation clients are under non-disclosure agreements. “I am no professional investigator, so I will do these individuals justice and leave them unnamed as I am in discussion with them currently to help with their reputation online,” Sherman Jnr said. “We target individuals and companies across the world. Not just New Zealand.”  This article cannot be considered completely independent of the subject per SIRS requirements.
 * Please let me know which other Independent column evaluations you do not agree with after reading through the article in question. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardng your last comment: I haven't see in the article any COI or dependance from the subject from Source #3. Mass media usually take comments from both sides of conflict. Take it logically. No one promote here this "Ryan".
 * I refer you to my asking you do not take it personally - many participants above identified TBT, BO, NZ Herald as a reliable sources. Masckarpone (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw in your edit to the table you disagreed with the Business Observer evaluation as well. Here's some coverage from the Business Observer articlke ''Being new to an industry can come with its challenges, but it’s also an opportunity to grow tremendously, Petrilli has learned....By 2017, Petrilli says the company had grown to $3.5 million, up 150%. “In the grand scheme of just being a small business, going from zero to $1.4 million — there was a lot to do there,” he says. “It’s very hectic to maintain a certain level of growth.”...“We were in a new industry so there wasn’t really a playbook,” he says....“The severity of it and what they need will vary from customer to customer based on the problem,” he says. “If you have a big reputation, like a big company or celebrity, you’re going to need more resources than the teacher who’s from Sarasota High School who maybe did something he or she wasn’t supposed to.”. The majority of the clients come to them, but Petrilli says if someone is involved in something on a national level, the company might reach out on its own. In revenue, Petrilli says his company only has two big competitors: Reputation.com, which surpassed $100 million in annual recurring revenue earlier this year in addition to a $150 million minority growth investment; and Reputation Defender, a company Pertrilli says is slightly ahead in revenue compared to NetReputation. ... “We’re on pace to be the second largest full-service reputation management agency in America,” he says, a statistic he provided based on revenue. “It’s a testament to being focused on growth as a company.” In addition, to the team and the market opportunity, another big driver for the success, Petrilli says, is reinvesting back into the organization. ... "More people than ever are online,” Petrilli says, “so more people than ever need a solution to be online.”
 * Again this is not "completely independent" of the subject, as required by SIRS . I've reverted the edit to the table for this reason. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment  The page currently looks different than it did before. I suggested remove Operations section - I did it. Masckarpone (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts buddy. Operations section was good on my opinion just for neutraul point of view close to criticism content above. Paranoya23 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As you see we have a consensus that Operations section is an offtop at least. So take it peacefully. Masckarpone (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, mostly aligned to Mr. A.B. I'm hesitant as there is one decent regional/local source here; I just don't see a second. There's a very large amount of fake/seo/paid sources out there for this company, which I've had to remove several times; clearly there are some new accounts here with a conflict of interest. Ultimately, you're left with the one decent, in-depth source. The Inc. recognition is utterly trivial, as are the sources that cite it (the TBT peice is literally a one-sentence quote from a company rep). Press releases and puffy interviews, along with directory listings are not helpful. I was kind of holding off on this, since the NZ Herald documentation of the firm's misadventure was interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't say anything about the company other than a simple quote from the owner. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article subject is not notable. Maybe it will be in the future, but once the self-sources are eliminated, there's not enough to support an article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

, the closer should pay careful attention to the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seriy333. This discussion is full of now-blocked socks. Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete to speedy delete per WP:G5, WP:G11 and/or WP:A7 per the evidence presented above. HarukaAmaranth (話) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (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.