Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictarine


 * 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__. ✗ plicit  23:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pictarine

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

No independent establishment of notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to a lack of reliable sourcing. The only sources I could find online for this subject were either connected to the business itself, or were news reports by unreliable websites.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found several references in French at []. Also: https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0a677ba5-46e7-4fbc-a2bf-94277a7e85a1%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=82474827&db=f6h  Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes those references in French reliable? I don't see any editorial policy page for Maddyness (the top source) Franceinfo appears to host blogs, Ladepenche has neither an editorial policy nor a listed author for its article, and the rest of the articles do not have significant coverage of the company (thus failing WP:CORPDEPTH). The only source that may be reliable and has in-depth coverage is La Tribune, but that is only one source, when multiple are required for GNG.
 * In addition, @Eastmain can you provide a functioning link to the source(s) you found in Ebscohost? The link doesn't appear to work for me. Thanks,  The Night Watch     (talk)   22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When you aren't sure whether a source is reliable, it is often helpful to read the source's article in Wikipedia, including other language Wikipedias if appropriate. The Ebscohost article is available through The Wikipedia Library. La Dépêche du Midi is a long-established newspaper founded in 1870. You can read about La Dépêche on the French Wikipedia at fr:La Dépêche du Midi. La Tribune is described in its own article in the English Wikipedia at La_Tribune and in French at fr:La_Tribune_(France,_1985). Maddyness is described in a single sentence at  fr:Sentier (quartier de Paris): "Le magazine Maddyness spécialiste de l'actualité des startup est également installé dans ce quartier." fr:France_Info_(offre_globale) appears to be part of France's pubic broadcaster. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know to look up the source's Wikipedia articles, otherwise I wouldn't have linked to La Tribune. However, just because a source is the subject of an article article does not mean that it is reliable. Analyzing the article just helps in finding journalists/awards that the source received that may make it reliable. I just raised points above about the editorial policies and authors of many of the sources, and the France Info post itself appears to be a blog according to a paragraph at the bottom of the page. Again, the article for La Dapheche does not list an author, saying that a "Contributor" wrote the article.  The Night Watch     (talk)   14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. In regards to the TWL articles that Eastmain mentioned, the first one "90-Day Wonders talks about the product and how it was pitched and produced, and gives only brief mentions regarding the company itself. I am leaning towards saying that it is insufficient to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, despite it being a reliable source. The other two articles do not even talk about the company or its products at all.  The Night Watch     (talk)   18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The relevant policy here is WP:NCORP, and WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH apply in evaluating sources. As per, these sources including the new sources added fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The stated business volumes are not high, and the sources nearly all call this a startup. Even the La Tribune article is brief, although that source might be considered as one source that has sufficient coverage to meet WP:SIRS - but it is alone in that. WP:SIRS says: there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. Looking at the references and I include the Tribute reference mentioned above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Tribune article relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or the founders and has no in-depth independent/original analysis/opinion/etc about the company.  HighKing++ 16:27, 21 June 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.