Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netrality


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Netrality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any coverage other than the standard business churnalism. There appears to be some non-trivial coverage in Data Center Frontier regarding Netrality and other companies' performance during Hurricane Harvey, but I can't find any information on their editorial policies leading me to suspect that this source is not reliable. The article as written is a rather impressive length given the lack of citable information, but on closer inspection it almost entirely consists of listing various properties that the company has acquired. Does not meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 19:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a co-creator of this article, I oppose its deletion. In reference to meeting notability guidelines (WP:NORG, WP:GNG), Netrality has seen substantial coverage from multiple independent sources requiring editorial integrity (BizJournals, Data Center Knowledge, Data Center Frontier). I believe this coverage more than proves that Netrality Properties is a sufficiently notable organization, and is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article dedicated solely to it. I would contest that Rosguill's nomination for deletion is based more on challenging the size and reputation of the publications covering Netrality than the content of the article itself--yet under the notability guideline that they reference, it is made clear that arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias which favors larger organizations. Other real estate investment trust organizations similar to Netrality with equal or less press coverage have yet to be marked for deletion, which leads me to believe that this article may have been targeted solely because it was in the New Pages Patrol.


 * If there are any steps that can be taken to improve the article's encyclopedic status, please let me know.
 * Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the size of the publications being used, my problem with them is that they seem to be trade magazines with opaque editorial policies that are largely republishing comments from PR statements from the company–such sources are regularly ignored at AfD, and WP:NORG specifically says Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility. I would appreciate the opinions of other editors as to whether or not the sources are reliable, but have seen little evidence of their reliability based on reviewing the pieces attached to the article. Regarding the idea that this article was singled out for deletion because it was in the new page queue, well, that is the purpose of the goggles virtually all new articles go through NPP, articles that are not judged to be notable are nominated for deletion, sometimes things slip through, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. signed,Rosguill talk 00:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I understand the suspicion of media coverage from trade publications, yet have seen no evidence of the aforementioned pubs lacking clear independence or editorial integrity. And though articles do occasionally slip through, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also states that "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". In this spirit, I would encourage you to consider the numerous other real estate investment trust articles present on Wikipedia with equal or less media coverage. I believe that if these many articles exist in accordance with the WP:NORG & WP:GNG guidelines, the Netrality article is more than notable enough to exist. Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  23:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. The section "Expansion" comes across as promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: basically this is completely lacking in decent reliable sources (as there aren't any to include) independent of the company's PR statements. NORG, ORGDEPTH etc etc, but WP:N has it in a nutshell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (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.