Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewtonX, Inc. (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Balance of policy based argument favours delete. Sources proposed (e.g. by 1990'sguy) are churnalism, i.e. based on press releases. Guy (help!) 10:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

NewtonX, Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. References are a mix of run of the mill business new, driven from press releases and AI Hype.  scope_creep Talk  00:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As you said above, fails to comply with notability guidelines. Hasn't been covered by independent, reliable 3rd party sources, and doesn't seem to be significant or notable. Luke (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the Deletes in the previous AfD. All the coverage seems to use the same phrasing, which is incredibly suspicious. Rockphed (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: First off, the first AfD for this article was closed only a month ago. It usually should be a while before another AfD is filed on the same topic, so this seems like WP:Gaming the system. On the substantive question of whether the article is notable, I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Numerous sources discuss NewtonX (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), and combined together, they show that it is notable enough to keep. The AfD closed as "no consensus" a month ago, with multiple editors believing it to be notable, and nothing has changed to suddenly warrant deletion since then. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage which is not simply PR regurgitation to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel 5969  TT me 19:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Lets take a look at the references:


 * Reference 1 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH "NewtonX raises $3 million for AI that connects executives with experts in any industry standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage and is Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage''
 * Reference 2 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH "Two Sigma leads $12m series A for expert knowledge network NewtonX" Similar to the above.
 * Ref 3. Sascha Eder states: This is a primary ref and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 4. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly the same as ref 2.
 * Ref 5. An article from paid news branding agency
 * Ref 6 Ref 6 is invalid as it it is an example of dependent coverage under WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 7. Ref 7 is a name drop and states Newton X is interested. It is hype and non-notable.
 * Ref 8. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 9. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly the same information and Reference 1 which means it is coming from a press release.
 * Ref 10 This is name drop from Sascha Eder stating
 * Ref 11 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 12.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 13. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 14. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND
 * Ref 15 Another primary reference. A consulting firm interviewed them to post a review of their work as an investment report. Not independent and in-depth.

In total there is 7 references mentioned $12million being raised from the press release. There is 2 which mention $3 millions. Not a single secondary source is present that is in depth that provided independent coverage of the subject. An analysis of the reference you supplied are merely run of the mill business news and name drops.  scope_creep Talk  19:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The particularly disappointing aspect of Scope Creep's analysis is that there are overviews of the company given in some of those citations and they are from widely known business publications. They are not merely passing mentions. Therefore, the article does meet WP: Coredepth.Knox490 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Notability and WP:Permastub, not to mention WP:Puffery and the above rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. NewtonX was mentioned with other with other technology-enhanced expert networks in a relatively recent Medium article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is one word name drop.  scope_creep Talk  00:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Medium is partially self-publishing, is it not?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Medium has no editorial oversight and anyone can publish anything there. Not reliable IMHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The citations used in the article are reliable and with Scope creep calling some of the references press releases (when there is no indication that they are press releases), he is setting up a straw man. In addition to the Tech Crunch, VentureBeat , Forbes , and Inc. publications--all of which are authoritative with respect to the field of business--NewtonX Inc. is quoted in other reliable citations, such as Forbes . This clearly establishes its notability (making it pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG). desmay (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with the point that the first AfD for this article was closed merely a month ago. And it is customary that there should be a reasonable amount of before a subsequent AfD is filed about the very same thing. Why? Because if things are rehashed endlessly after a decision has been reached, this is unfair to the new AfDs that need adequate attention to them. If we go round and round in a loop covering the same exact matter, it is not an efficient way of doing things. It is merely WP:Gaming the system. Wikipedia needs volunteer editors and we should make the doing the work as pleasant as possible and not make the work repetitive and therefore tedious. As far as the main issue of  of whether the article is notable, I agree that the article meets WP:GNG and it also meets WP:CORP. Furthermore, I checked all these sources (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), and only one could be argued to be a press release - namely Business Wire. Frankly, I don't understand why they have been called "press releases" by another editor when they are clearly not. The Associated Press, Wired, Kiplinger, etc. are highly respected news sources. After all is said and done, let's move on and stop endlessly chewing over this matter. Knox490 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article clearly passes WP:GNG; a simple Google search alone for NewtonX provides 753,000 results (an increase from the previous yield of 227,000 results). A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 06:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Google hot counts don't count towards notability and never have done.  scope_creep Talk  08:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, they establish the fact that the company has received significant press coverage. A non-notable company would receive that many GHITS. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't and your argument is completely fallacious.  scope_creep Talk  09:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets look at each of the new posted references:
 * 1. Apnews Its states: Germain Chastel, CEO of technology consultant NewtonX, says Twitter helps the company be more visible A google of these words turns up 4 sites with exact same wording, indicating it comes off a press release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * 2. Forbes. Apart from being a new drop, a small paragraph the words Identifying the voice of the customer and garnering market feedback is paramount to success, particularly in B2B turns up in four sites, indicating it is from a press release. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * 3. Focus on the previous company. Essentially a name drop and has no content.
 * 4. This is growth of the company. Another tiny paragraph. According to WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as capital transaction, such as raised capital are considered trivial coverage and can't be used to prove notability.
 * 5. Techtarget. It states You can move between plans, something you can't do if you're tethered to in-house hardware in quotes meaning its being quoted. Single sentence. It is primary. Not independent, nor indepth.  That is so generic.
 * 6. Not specific to the company. Merely another name drop. It fails WP:ORGIND as it is another quote. Not independent of the company.
 * 7. Exact same words as Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator Announces $1 Million in Award found on seven other sites indicating it is a press release. Here they are saying the press release: Fails WP:ORGIND
 * 8. Another name drop, with no content.
 * 9. Another $3 million in seed funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage such a capital transaction, such as raised capital
 * 10. This one came up before. An interview with the founder and only a small part talks about the company. Not independent.
 * 11. A single sentence. Sascha Eder states: This is a primary ref and fails WP:ORGIND

I've heard the same argument in the previous Afd about excellent companies who provided business news and should trusted e.g. VentureBeat. Here is NewtonX press page, with VentureBeat on it, clearly indicating they are being used for advertising. No one is saying that these companies are not excellent bearers of business news, but like most US businesses subscribe to the advertising dollar.  scope_creep Talk  09:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Apnews Its states: Germain Chastel, CEO of technology consultant NewtonX, says Twitter helps the company be more visible A google of these words turns up 4 sites with exact same wording, indicating it comes off a press release."
 * This is simply not true and attempts to engage in mind reading. Journalists and other web content creators often have deadlines or see no compelling reason to create original content for small snippets of words or are simply lazy. As a result, it is common to see small snippets of material copied on other websites. It is not like web content is some doctoral dissertation and the penalty of plagiarism will apply for copying small snippets. I often see Wikipedia articles with snippets copied for germane topics such as say clocks, oranges, giraffes, Civil War, etc. I personally find it very easy to put something in my own words so I don't copy web content word for word, but we should recognize that people have differing talents and attitudes about original content being on the web. For example, people in Asian or other more communal cultures place a lower estimation on the value of originality than someone in the highly individually focused West.
 * After all is said and done, you cannot arbitrarily call something a press release merely because you want it to be. You have to clearly demonstrate this to be the case.Knox490 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I see you've been paid to write this User:Renzoy16. scope_creep Talk  09:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Knox490 we only the discuss the references here. Nothing else. Your comments smack of WP:MERCY and WP:TRIVIAL. I've checked every one of the references. I'll check that one again.  scope_creep Talk  12:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the star tribune with the same words: The exact words. There is more.   scope_creep Talk  12:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Knox490 I totally agree with the latter half of your paragraph. scope_creep Talk  12:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Bing's news section shows articles about the company in top tier publications, such as Tech Crunch, VentureBeat, Yahoo Finance, Inc., Entrepreneur, and the list goes on. The topic meets WP:N and if there are sources in that list which aren't currently present in the article, they can be added there. Carajou (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Very curious search url. What has got this: HDRSC6 got to do with it.  scope_creep Talk  20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed you have made six edits this year. You only appeared at 3.30 this afternoon to vote.  scope_creep Talk  20:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You seems to have a clear WP:COI.  scope_creep Talk  20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Since, *some* people didn't get it the first time, this company raised twelve million dollars in Series A funding, which was reported in various media sources that are of significance, such as TC and VB. That is newsworthy and distinguishes NewtonX, Inc. from insignificant startups. Eliko007 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Curious how you come in, after being away three months, come straight here and repeated the same argument as above, which has been debunked. I've posted it to WP:COI.  scope_creep Talk  21:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Funding can't be used to establish notability per WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  21:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yeah, all of the sources I've clicked so far are pretty terrible (including those linked above). Definite WP:CORPDEPTH issues. Furthermore some funny business going on here. I see in this AfD several relatively inactive accounts that I'm used to seeing pop up together, but always in one completely unrelated topic area, which makes this quite strange. More so that so many people are getting WP:ORG so wrong, pointing to brief mentions, press releases, routine coverage, trade publications, etc. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I noticed that as well. They cropped up together in its first nomination.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP. I don't think the keep !voters are helping matters by indiscriminately throwing up sources without regard to the quality or depth of coverage. Businesswire and finmes are clearly pulling from the same press release. Maybe there's a non-trivial mention buried in one of the dozen or so links that have been posted so far, but I can't find one. Nblund talk 01:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot find references that meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I have no idea why it was recreated under a different title, but this still Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found these additional articles at notable websites that are interviews/etc. as far as the executives at NewtonX that mention NewtonX (Forbes, Entrepeneur, IntelligentCIO, etc). If the company was not notable their executives would not be getting interviews/etc. As far as WP: Coredepth, these newly cited articles I am mentioning that are at Forbes and IntelligentCIO do talk about the company substantially in the articles. Press/interviews in these publications is hard to get - especially articles which substantially talk about the company. And the two new 2 additional articles which substantially mention the company aren't the only citations which do this (if you look at some of the articles cited by others above, you can clearly see this). If you ran a small business like a florist shop, realty franchise, corner store, it would be super difficult to get this type of press unless you were notable and a game changer in the industry. My family ran a small business when my parents were still working and the business certainly wasn't mentioned in Forbes, IntelligentCIO, etc.Knox490 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it would be super difficult to get this type of press au contraire. Ideamensch (link 15 above) actually says "We don’t turn down any entrepreneur who wants to do an interview". Applicants simply send in answers to a standard set of interview questions. Similarly, the Forbes New York Business Council articles are both written by the company's CEO as part of a paid program through Forbes itself. IntelligentCIO appears to be a product of Lynchpinmedia, which provides "Content Syndication" to the tech industry. In other words: you pay them and they put up ads disguised as articles on third party websites pause for suggestive eyebrow raise


 * Its actually not very difficult to get a company to publish your articles if you pay them for the privilege. I think WP:THREE would be worth following here: just pick a couple of good articles and stop flooding the discussion with this stuff. It's not persuasive. Nblund talk 23:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well said. I have to say I'm very suspicious of Knox490, Carajou, and Eliko007's comments. You?


 * 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.