Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veem


 * 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. North America1000 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Veem
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Veem


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to fail GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely on company announcements, quotations/interviews with company personnel, funding announcements, etc. Looks like a company with a PR department but no intellectually independent secondary sources available. -- HighKing ++ 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources found by at Articles for deletion/Align Commerce in The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, and Ottawa Business Journal provide significant coverage of the subject. The articles are all written by established journalists and published in sources with a history of fact-checking. That these sources consider the information they publish to be credible and worthy of covering means that the information passes Verifiability. I reviewed the article and consider it to be generally neutrally written. Any minor issues can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion, per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Editing policy.  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Veem to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, you fail to follow through with your examination of sources. It is *not* enough that the the source meets the criteria for reliable sources, but the reference/article itself must also meet the criteria for establishing notability. References that rely on quotations from company personnel and materials produced by the company or press releases fail the criteria as per WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Just like the references you list above - they may be reliable sources (in that they *reliably* reproduce quotations and press release information) but the articles are not "intellectually independent" and on examination, all of the pertinent information/data/facts are attributed to company sources. -- HighKing ++ 11:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * {U|Cunard}}, TeleChrunch has a few reliable product reviews, but the rest of its content is PRjunk. I would not support ruling it out completely as a RS for N, because some times it is reliable--one has to actually look at the particular article. But that it has editorial control in this case means only thathe editorial control is that of a publication intending and willing to publish PR. The Mirror has editorial control also, but we've ruled it out completely beause the editor publish and devote their skilled editorial efforts, towards publishing mostly garbage. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Align Commerce participants and closer:, , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, please try to include everyone. You missed the nominator . -- HighKing ++ 11:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Light2021 is indefinitely blocked for disruptive AfD nominations. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe the argument here, which has come up quite a bit in other AfD discussions lately, is that the references are PR-driven. Quoting company representatives does not necessarily fail a reference test. In fact, quoting company representatives is good journalism as it takes their point of view into consideration for whatever story is written. What it comes down to for me is if the publication has editorial oversight - meaning they have a process to check the statements that are provided prior to publishing. There are in-depth sources that talk about the company, albeit more under the name "Align Commerce" than "Veem." I had to pull this and this from archive. What we need to look at closely is if the article is paid placement or there is connection with the publication such as a referral or affiliate fee for sending people to the company. I would lean towards many of the Bitcoin publications falling into this category, but the Wall Street Journal and Ottawa Business Journal would not. I think this is a good discussion to have at WP:RSN as it would really help to get a consensus for future AfD votes.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Both those sources fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely almost exclusively on quotations from company personnel and are not intellectually independent. Additionally, two different sources are required - even if one of those met the criteria for establishing notability, they are both from the same publisher. -- HighKing ++ 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Analysis of Google news shows many new sources since the "Keep" result six months ago, yet the nomination has no mention of the previous AfD or what has changed since the previous AfD.  Topic is already appearing in Google books.  Nor is there mention of Veem Ltd. and Veem Corp Pty Ltd.  There is also a German Veem.  Meanwhile the nomination ignores the weakness shown at the last AfD within my arguments for WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - can you provide links for any two references that you believe meet the requirements for notability? If we get two references, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination and change my !vote. CNMall41 above provided two references but they are PRIMARY sources for any information and data and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- sources presented at this AfD fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and are mostly WP:SPIP which are excluded from consideration when it comes to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I !voted "keep or incubate" at the previous AfD, but the option to incubate is a bridge that has been crossed with the "keep" result from the last AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. an apparent violation of the tou; such articles should never be kept--its the same aa articles written by sockpupetts. The assumptions is thatthey are a/written by sockpupetts, even if we have not yet found them, b/ are promotional and intended to be promotional, because that's what the companies pay for, and will use only unreliable references, because if there would good ones, some volunteer editor would have written an article. It's not a formal rule, but out view on these can reasonably depend considerably on the line of business--bitcoin companies, online gambling houses, press agencies, advertising firms, self-help gurus, life coaches, professional public speakers--all of these ruly only on hype and there is almsot always nothing substantial. On these topics by feeling is non-notable unless very clearly shown otherwise by unimpeachable sources. (On tthe other hand, I think its rational to look more favorably on companies that actually produce something. In this case, the reputable sources are entirely those talking about the industry in general, not the company, and all that is left is anouncmeents and within-industry journals catering to a particularly dubious industry. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete online payment processors are a dime a dozen. Nothing in this page inspires me to think "hey ghis company is notable". Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 7 September 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.