Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanga.com


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Tanga.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable source to establish notability. Full of LinkedIn, official website, blogs. Full of advertisements.It is nothing just a corporate spam. Mar11 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree. I stumbled upon the company (tanga) the other day when I was looking to buy something online.  I googled the company & looked it up on wikipedia, & to my surprise there wasn't a wikipedia page on it.  I figured other people have probably run into the same situations, so I made an article about the company.  Instead of putting the page up for deletion, why don't you tell me mechanisms in which i can fix it, or delete the parts that shouldn't be there? & I would like to ask that you please review the information below, and reconsider.(Kaygee906 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC))

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of  significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization
 * Notability
 * Primary criteria

Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.


 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

''' Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.'''


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC))
 * Strong Delete  This is obviosuly an advertisment, most of the references are either a personal blog, linkedin, or the company website. Alexf505 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above:
 * "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability.  However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."  (Kaygee906
 * Kaygee906, So as to display this as a single discussion on the deletion sorting pages, please don't use section headings: a semi-colon will do the trick. But also avoid excessive bolding and section to make your points, please, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * okay (Kaygee906 (talk))
 * I see you've also removed what seemed like a copypaste of the entire article here, which is good. That really isn't required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable private business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable. Seems like WP:ADVERT. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman Why do you consider this page corporate spam? This is the first page I've ever created so, I may not have written it in a manner that it's supposed to be written in. What things would you suggest changing? (Kaygee906 (talk))
 * Response -- the article is full of laudatory and puffy language, such as:
 * "Tanga and CEO, Jeremy Young, have also come to be the center of positive praise amoung the business community. In 2016, Tanga’s CEO was spotlighted for being awarded Entrepreneur of the year. [3] [15] Additionally, Tanga has been mentioned in several well-known publications including the Phoenix Business Journal, [3] [16] [17] Denver Business Journal, [18] Success (magazine), [19] as well as an episode of Startup Grind, powered by Google for Entrepreneurs, in which Jeremy discussed his bootstrapping business approach at the inception of Tanga.com. [12]" Etc.
 * Does this clarify? BTW, Phoenix Biz Journal is not a "well-known publication". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do Not Delete K.e.coffman, NickCT, Alexf505, Mar11; How are these resources not proof of notability? Inc. 500 Magazine, Phoenix Business Journal, Startup Grind powered by Google for Entrepreneurs, Success (magazine) Denver Business Journal, Better Business Bureau, ResellerRatings. These are all prime examples of reliable publications independent of Tanga, not to mention it's proof that the company is reaching beyond just a regional boundary. I may not have sourced everything in the correct manner when I first published the article, but have any of you looked at it recently, or actually clicked on the links? I'd rather not delete it if more work can be done to it in order to fix it. (Kaygee906 (talk))
 * Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."
 * "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."
 * "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. Smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable."
 * Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.
 * A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.
 * Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
 * The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization:
 * Startup Grind powered by Google for Entrepreneurs
 * https://www.startupgrind.com/events/details/startup-grind-phoenix-presents-jeremy-young-tanga
 * ResellerRatings
 * http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Tanga#reviews
 * Denver Business Journal
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r51NK218jKAJ:www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2015/06/26/jeremy-young-knows-consumers-love-a-good-bargain.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * Inc. 500 Magazine
 * https://www.inc.com/profile/tangacom?cid=full500016-list-2239
 * Success (magazine)
 * http://www.success.com/article/how-to-grow-your-company-from-within
 * Phoenix Business Journal
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XGiXfhSke-8J:www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/print-edition/2016/05/13/az-top-tech-exec-awards-ceo-of-the-year.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://media.bizj.us/view/img/10226425/ace2016.pdf
 * Better Business Bureau
 * https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-shopping/tanga-com-in-chandler-az-1000014089
 * Entrepreneurs' Organization, Arizona
 * http://www.eoarizona.org/member-news/jeremy-young-ceo-tanga-named-ceo-year-az-top-tech-exec-awards
 * PHX East Valley
 * http://www.phxeastvalley.org/splash/wp-content/uploads/Jeremy-Young.pdf |title= PHX East Valley Leaders | publisher=
 * Mixergy
 * https://mixergy.com/interviews/tanga-with-jeremy-young/
 * - Appreciate your position. But notability is establish by direct coverage in mainstream and notable publications. I've glanced at some of your sources, and don't see any which meet that criteria. Looking at Success (magazine) source for instance; it's a mediocre source, but only gives passing mention to Tanga. That means it carries very little weight in establishing notability. And everyone has a BBB listing. That provides no weight.
 * Do you have a single decent source that grants direct coverage to Tanga? If so, which one?
 * Scrapping together a whole bunch of very low quality sources, does not produce notability.
 * Also, so you know, short and concise responses are more convincing than wall-of-text responses. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to lay out my point at once so it's all in one location. Anyway, there are more sources above, such as the Startup Grind/Google for Entrepreneurs conference & Inc. 500 Magazine. Here are some additional sources:


 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kOf98B292WIJ:www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/print-edition/2015/06/26/entrepreneur-of-the-year-jeremy-young-pivots-to.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://aztechbeat.com/2014/09/e-retailer-tanga-1m-customers-flash/ https://mixergy.com/interviews/tanga-with-jeremy-young/ http://www.phxeastvalley.org/splash/wp-content/uploads/Jeremy-Young.pdf
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r51NK218jKAJ:www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2015/06/26/jeremy-young-knows-consumers-love-a-good-bargain.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Why does everyone keep saying the wikipedia tanga article is spam? I don't work for the company nor am I associated with the company. I'm actually an RN nursing student, 3,000 away from where this company is located. I made the article because I was shopping online & hadn't heard of the company, so I figured other people have probably experienced that too. (Kaygee906 (talk))
 * - So Inc. 500 might be a semi-decent source, but the reference you've giving is a listing, not an article. That's not real coverage. I'll ask again; can you point to a single decent source that gives direct coverage to the subject?
 * Spammers aren't always people with conflict of interests. I've accidentally created spam before. I've found some subjects, which weren't necessarily notable, interesting. NickCT (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT The Inc. 500 Mag isn't sole coverage, but it's still noteworthy; I understand what you mean though. What about all of the other sources? Startup Grind powered by Google for Entrepreneurs focuses on the company and history of it, Phoenix Business Journal has 2 articles focused on the company & founder, as does the Denver Business Journal, http://www.phxeastvalley.org/splash/wp-content/uploads/Jeremy-Young.pdf, This site has sole coverage: https://mixergy.com/interviews/tanga-with-jeremy-young/  I think relevance probably depends on the person. What a person in the business world finds to be relevant sources, probably differs from that of someone who isn't business focused. For example, in the medical world, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Elsevier are prime resources. So, while mixergy.com seems like it's a good source (to me), it may not be considered to be for someone who deals with business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygee906 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - The Startup Grind doesn't really look like a "classical" RS (i.e. not a book, journal, news article, etc). I'm not sure it's really a source for reliable information, so I'd call that a "low value" source. Also, that subject of that source seems to be Jeremy Young. The indirect subject is the company.
 * Not to be rude, but I honestly don't want to go through all your sources 1-by-1 to tell you what is wrong with them. Good sources are mainstream news outlets, books produced by respectable publishers, highly regard academic journals, etc, etc. If you want to demonstrate notability, find one of these things that gives Tanga direct coverage.
 * re "relevance probably depends on the person" - We have pretty good guidelines on identifying reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2017 (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.