Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philo (Internet television)


 * 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Philo (Internet television)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable company by WP:SPA creating WP:PROMO articles. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know how we can any longer call the article creator an WP:SPA when he's clearly branched out to write about notable (in my opinion) American tech startups and Internet entrepreneurs with no relation to one another, other than perhaps that they have been incubated in the Boston area. Why would we want to discourage this with WP:BITEy behaviour? Plus, this isn't an example of WP:PROMO, it's a neutrally well-written article. And while Philo is hardly a household name, we do have enough coverage to meet the criterion of multiple reliable sources, in my opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as WP:NOT (policy) applies here since it's a clear advertisement part of an advertising campaign, enough said. SwisterTwister   talk  22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article meets WT:NOT, WT:ORG, and WT:RS.  are you also suddenly going after all my pages? How is this an advertising campaign? Please, I encourage you to show good evidence. You have provided no argument whatsoever. How is this article "clearly" part of an advertising campaign? Andresramon (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * Comment - Simply for the sake of this AfD, I will state that an article caring to specify its clients in the first sentences and with its company activities is clear advertising and it gets worse when the PR award is listed, followed by the PR sources. WP:NOT is therefore violated because all of this is only suitable for the company website. SwisterTwister   talk  23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well of course you are gonna have PR as listed sources --- why are there so many NYT articles cited in wiki? Why is it that a link to NYT is placed at the top of an AfD? These are reliable sources that are used over and over again to show notability and encyclopedic content. Now tell me, how is Foursquare's first sentence any different? I'll copy and paste it: Foursquare is a local search-and-discovery service mobile app which provides search results for its users. By taking into account the places where a user goes, the things they have told the app that they like, and the other users whose advice they trust, Foursquare provides recommendations of the places to go to near a user's current location.  The first fragment describes what it is, a search-and-discovery service mobile all. It then states what it does for the user, to use your phrasing, the "clients", with the phrase by taking into account the places where a user goes" ..etc etc. Now, just like Foursquare's first sentence summarizes what it is, so does the Philo's first statement.  I have now, changed the first sentence to seem even less than Foursquare's. In fact, it just barely contains the necessary information for a reader to skim. Andresramon (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * I'm starting to think this individual is just WP:NOTGETTINGIT... -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per articles in NY Times and WSJ, plus FastCompany recognition. Clean up. —Мандичка YO 😜  18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotionalism is all by itself a reason for deletion.  A $20 million internet company is very unlikely to be notable, and in fact, there are no substantial sources.  As for Foursquare, see WP:Einstein. Someone writing an article on a very minor company who thinks it compares it with a leader in the field shows a lack of proportion that typically goes with promotional editing.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is definitely promotion/advertising. The company is not notable. --  Dane  talk  19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - per major improvement by User:Timothyjosephwood. Shows it got non-trivial coverage in Forbes and the New York Times - what more can we ask for? --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Now at 14 references total including NYT, WSJ, and Forbes, compared to seven when nominated. Toned down overall. Now fairly run-of-the-mill for a mid sized tech company. When founded, who invested, what they do, etc... Timothy Joseph Wood  16:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the company has not achieved anything remarkable so far apart from raising money and planning to "complete the integration of streaming service, HBO Go by January 2017". Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable tech startups even if they get WSJ to write about them. See WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Demonstrated notability.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)




 * Keep – A significant part of the article focuses upon funding, which some view as promotional, so this is a bit of a weaker keep. More information about the company itself, and its previous incarnation as Tivli, as reported in reliable sources, would improve the article. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , . North America1000 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous valid references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep And improve. Multiple good references.  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  13:40, 21 December 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.