Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SocialCred


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SocialCred

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional non-notable app with very little sustained independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: If this is promotional, I urge senior editors to clean up promotional contents in the article just as an Admin has done on the page. There are more sources in two print newspapers and I'm learning how to cite them on the page. Asema1957(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment AfD is not supposed to be for clean up purposes. Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I am finding SIGCOV of the app, with much non-trivial coverage like this. and this and this. There is not a guideline which calls for "sustained" coverage in relation to a product. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons cited by User:Lightburst 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt ( with no prejudice against draftification and requiring WP:AFC in case this really takes off, but that's doubtful ). The WP:THREE sources listed above are glorified press releases. The existing sources in the article really aren't any better.  One of them was written by a member of the company too.  The first paragraph of the first source (from The Sun) reads:  Holy PR-speak, Batman! – that disqualifies it from establishing notability on its face.  Everything here is the result of a media blitz by the company and doesn't establish notability.  Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per . We've no reason to reward a PR blitz. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Meh, WP:SALT is a rather odd suggestion for a new article which has not ever been recreated. And the word "glorified" is a rather odd adjective to use as well. A simple WP:BEFORE shows much more non-trivial independent RS, like Business Day 1, Techeconomy 2, Vanguard 3. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Salting is more than called for here. This article was, beyond a reasonable doubt, the result of WP:UPE.  Your Business Day source is  to the Neusroom source already in the article here, even though the two are ostensibly by different, staff writers.  Oops, somebody done screwed up at the PR firm!
 * Moreover, the company in question, Plaqad was already deleted more than once, the creator blocked for socking, see also their effort at Articles for deletion/Patricia.com.ng, and note the not-at-all-surprising overlap in sources at that AfD and here. I've opened an SPI on the current article creator (alleging a link to the original account).  This may or may not give anything conclusive, but it's worth keeping an eye on.
 * In any case, it's fair to conclude that the bulk of the sources provided were paid for, and are thus not independent of the article subject, and thus do nothing to establish notability. Unfortunately, I think you picked the wrong article to try to rescue this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the right article-I already did some minor work to the article. You can make a point by calling out press release type sources, but not the independent ones. And pointing to other deleted articles which are not this article is not an impressive tactic. The app gets much coverage in Nigeria and Africa and has understandable PR. This is only a 2 month old app so some regurgitation is understandable. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Question Does this https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/08/socialcred-shows-why-micro-influencers-might-be-getting-more-nods-over-mega-influencers/ not count as legitimate coverage? What about the other sources mentioned already?   D r e a m Focus  21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. From Vanguard's advertising page: Given the promotional nature of this piece and the host of other promotional stories all appearing, and the history surrounding previous related articles and account, it's pretty safe to say that everything here is the result of paid PR.  None of this demonstrates notability. (For reference, that's about  US dollars). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the editor is incorrect about most of the sources. The LA Times and NY Times are not the standard for this type ofNigerian app. We have several solid sources: DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late. This is a two month old app. I am unsure why the need for this tendentious editing... contesting every piece of information. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like lots of PR for this very new company in a sector where every new company can drum up PR-based coverage in low quality sources. Not seeing anything approaching WP:CORPDEPTH here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Rhododendrites and XOReaster. This is a promotional brochure. Any company can drum up the usual marketing churn and press releases, but this is an encyclopedia and not a database of advertisements. Reyk YO! 08:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - promotional and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional should be removed. However, with sources indicated by Lightburst along with some analysis, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The issue isn't primarily about cleanup or promotion but rather the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not a single one of the references meets the criteria. Invariably, they're announcements (or based on announcements) and other PR. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Honestly this is really just a promotional article for a non notable app created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.