Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Receptionists


 * 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ruby Receptionists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still a blatant advertisement since my extensive and specific PROD here since the listed sources are all simply publishing PR or republishing it, take the Forbes for example, it is literally from a "special contributor" who is a apparently some random journalist, likely hired or enticed by the company to publish their own advertising; the Fortune itself is simply part of a list of new minor companies to work with, and the others are equally blatant PR; my own searches had in fact found PR, and that's not surprising since that's exactly what both the article contents and history show in that this has literally not changed since the first user's contributions, Mxheil (which seems to have been a clever advertising-only account and I would even speculate it was a paid advertising account, the fact it's one major contribution was this one advertisement). Something else to note about this article is not only the blatancy of using PR and advertising puff here, but once again, my repeated searches are still only finding local PR advertising and PR words published or republished by the businesspeople or company themselves.

We never and never shall make compromises with such advertising blatancy wherever the information may be published, because one thing is certain, and that's that the information, even in the major news, are simply PR and republished PR, including by damningly blatant "special contributor". SwisterTwister  talk  18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The Forbes link is in the External links section of the article. It is not used as a source or to demonstrate notability. North America1000 15:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article from Fortune you can't argue is PR, it is independent, and is mostly about the company. Taken in conjunction with some of the other sources in the article and others that are out there, there is enough to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This book also has a fair amount on the company (as in more than trivial coverage), and it appears rather independent. The fact that you get 167 hits on Google's Books search says something. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The article does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only good reference is the article in Fortune. There's a reason why WP:GNG specifies several references, in order to avoid making articles on the basis of a single magazine's or newspaper's humnb interest account. That just shows that an editor once decided to devote an article, not that there is any kind of general interest in the company.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep sources exist .E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there supposed to be apparent substance there? All the first 10 pages found were published-republished PR which then also included copypaste company quotes and its company activities along with quoted interviews with its businesspeople repeating said company activities, when there's literally nothing but that (from both local PR publications but also national ones), it shows there's literally nothing else better. This also shows since the entire article apparently was only able to the best that could also be found: Published-republished company PR. When we start compromising and allowing such blatant advertising and republished company-quotes, we're damned as a suitable encyclopedia.
 * Also, about these sources above, the Delete votes have analyzed and listed them all as simply republished company adverisements, therefore literally republished and offering the same link that consists of them, is not showing any different at all, simply actually emphasizes there is in fact nothing else but what the company has published about themselves and had republished. I'll go as far to even quote some of what's in that link above: "The company wants its clients to know it's a welcoming workplace and offers its clients the best services", "The company said today", "The company's businesspeople", "The company's finances are", "My company Ruby Receptions", "Today, the businesspeople from Ruby Receptions said", "Ruby Receptionist's services include", "Ruby Receptionists is good for its clients", "Ruby Receptionists's new offices today", "Ruby Receptionists offers its employees beneficial pay", "Ruby Receptionists announces here today", "Ruby Receptionists' employees include", "Ruby Receptionists' CEO says", "Ruby Receptionists has a perky office vibe and happy workforce,, etc. None of that was actual journalism, instead costumed advertising acting as "News". When all those pages have this, it shows there's no genuine news there, since it's everything company-published. SwisterTwister   talk  03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't feel there is sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. It is one of many thousands of small businesses and doesn't cross the notability threshold. MB 04:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also want to note that the author user themselves is suggested to be a likely paid advertising user the fact they only ever involved themselves with these subjects, and heavily focusing with PR-like information, therefore suggesting only one thing: A PR agent or otherwise involved person with such activities. Because of these concerns, the Delete votes have substantiated themselves with clear statements about this, hence WP:GNG means nothing if WP:SPAM and WP:NOT then apply, which are in fact policy. SwisterTwister   talk  05:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? What author user (and what does that mean) somehow has a COI here? A look at the person who started the article has infrequent edits and an eclectic mix of articles based on the most 50 edits. Further, even if someone had a COI, should we still discount that? Should we discount your arguments because you seem to have it out for business articles (aka a deletionist)? When you go into a discussion looking for reasons to delete, you will find your reasons to delete. If you go in looking for reasons to keep, you will find your reasons. If you go in with an open mind and without baggage, you will find reasons to delete sometimes and reasons to keep other times. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * sources while the articles in the news google search I linked to above do include multitudinous choices by the Portland Business Journal to mention/link to press releases, , sources also include a local prize covered in The Oregonian ; a RS Corvallis Gazette-Times article with details on the company's size ;  what appears to be reported article by a paid, staff journalist in Business Insider; that profile in Fortune (magazine) ; and also inclusion in a Fortune (magazine) list of 50 Best Small and Medium-Size Companies to Work For (with brief profile); a similar listing at NBCChicago ; in addition to coverage in essays by Forbes  "contributors," including ,  .   Lots of photos in these and other articles; the company's unusual office culture seems to attract coverage... and prizes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — Found another Oregonian article by staff writer specifically about Ruby Receptionists. Article is dated 11 Aug 2013.  There are also several other Oregonian articles that mention the business … and could provide facts for use in Wiki-article.  In my opinion, articles on businesses are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s body of work mainly because basic facts can easily be attributed PR.  However, if article sticks to the facts and has reasonable independent sources like the Oregonian (which is largest/oldest newspaper Oregon) they should be kept.--Orygun (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; local coverage in the Oregonian is not convincing as it does not meet WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep your vote, but actually read WP:AUD and follow the link there to regional newspaper. The Oregonian is a regional newspaper, just like any other daily in large metros. Local is the small town paper. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage in Fortune magazine certainly meets WP:AUD. North America1000 03:14, 20 November 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.