Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switchboard (company)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Switchboard (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable, independent sources of any substance, or a clear indication that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Two sources do not mention Switchboard, two are routine listings in app stores, one is a press release written by the company's CEO, and the remaining two are listings from local venture competitions which offer no depth. A search for better sources found nothing. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The local venture competition sources should be reviewed as the above statement is entirely subjective ("offer no depth"). DigiNative13 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One is a press release for the event issued by Simon Fraser University: Switchboard is the end-to-end freight management platform that allows shippers to find, track and pay pre-verified trucking companies. That is the only mention of the company on that page. The other source just mentions the company's name with a link to their website. My subjective opinion is that neither of those show enough depth to indicate notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You conveniently switched references when alluding to the press release, that's not the competition source. The "lack of depth" argument is, again, rather subjective. I can claim that about any source, does not make it accurate. DigiNative13 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "switched references"? The New Ventures site provides no information about Switchboard except that it has participated in the competition and made it to round three, so I'm not clear on what you're saying. "Depth" has a specific meaning in this case, per WP:CORPDEPTH, but yes, this is somewhat subjective. That's why I said "my subjective opinion". It's subjective in the same way that all editing is somewhat subjective. Wikipedia has very few purely objective tests for this kind of thing. Even the simplest notability guidelines require context and interpretation, so dismissing something by labeling it subjective isn't all that persuasive by itself. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You originally made reference to two startup competition sources, then listed one of them as the press release which is an unrelated source. If you can't even keep track of your own indications, then that's rather telling. You can protest and claim that subjectivity is a fair basis all you want, it won't help your case or come off as remotely persuasive or intelligible for that matter. DigiNative13 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What? There are two sources about two competitions, one of which is a press release... right? "The Coast Capital Savings Venture Prize competition is held annually by SFU's Venture Connection program and is open to all SFU students and recent alumni innovators." The press release was issued by the University which is closely linked to the competition. That's not an unrelated source. I'm baffled by why that is supposed to be a contradiction. Is there another source somewhere? Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Does not meet wp:corp. It's a bit hard to search for sources because the name is a generally used term, and the company web page does not have a press section (which is often a good way to find links, although possibly selected for positive remarks). In the article itself, there are no third-party sources that would support notability. To whit: #1 their own press release, #2-#3 download sites, #4 has no mention, #5-#6 shows that the company's software was nominated for prizes (but didn't win). I don't think the prizes are big enough that being an also-ran would confer notability. The only article I found independently was this and it appears to be a kind of directory. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:11, 30 July 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.