Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziosk


 * 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.  So Why  07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ziosk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete No indications of notability. References are mostly advertorials or PR or mentions-in-passing or are references to the company or industry. Fails GNG. -- HighKing ++ 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (please note that I created this page, but have no affiliation with the company). The company has in excess of 170K of the devices in the United States, the devices are just sold in a non-traditional model. In regards to the comment by, most of the citations are from respectable news organizations, and I will fix the couple of instances where press releases have been cited today. Also, the article is about the company, in addition to their table ordering tablets, not just the devices themself. Daylen (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the citations which are press releases. Daylen (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I too am not affiliated with the company but the sources speak for themselves: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, etc. I see only PDF's as possible PR, but the rest is reliable. Don't understand why it was nominated in the first place?--Biografer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. It's not just that the sources must be "independent" (and nobody is saying that somehow there's a connection between the some publications and Ziosk) but they must be "intellectually independent" and these ones are not. For example, the Forbes article (ignoring for now that it is in their "sites"/"blogs" section and therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability) is a classic advertorial and we see this from Forbes (here at AfD) all the time - it is a common "customer success story" dressed up as an ad and that "article" has been reprinted and republished in other publications (again, classic advertorial behaviour). The purported "independent" article includes customer interviews, photos, complete "look how easy it is to use" descriptions, mild put-downs of "other payment systems" and why Ziosk is better, the financial reasons for restaurants to chose Ziosk, quotes from company officers. Hard to see what they've left out barring a download link for a brochure. The NYT article has one small paragraph where they mention Ziosk in passing with a quote from a company officer - it is not in-depth coverage and Ziosk is not the topic of the article. The latimes article is regurgitating a PR announcement from Olive Garden - fails WP:ORGIND and is not independent. The nrn.com article is from an announcement made by Red Robin. The announcement was made as the Greenwood Village, Colo.-based casual-dining operator reported a 3.6-percent increase in same-store sales for its fourth quarter ended Dec. 29, including a 1.2-percent increase in traffic. The Washington Post article is an advertorial complete with quotations from exec at Chili's and Ziosk. Bloomberg articles are usually advertorials and this one is no exception - even uses the "5 ways Ziosk is great for your business" style of formatting. The Sacramento Bee article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions Ziosk in passing and also because the article relies on the opinion of a "Tom Caporaso, CEO of Clarus Commerce" who cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The CBS Sacramento article meets the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, the eater.com article is a repeat/summary of the CBS article so is not a new independent source. So in my opinion, only one good source that meets the criteria for establishing notability out of eleven. That isn't enough. Hopefully now you've a better understanding of the reasons why the article was nominated in the first place. -- HighKing ++ 15:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- highly promotional for TableTop Media; the content does not belong here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Some older sources talk about Ziosk in the context of hotels/etc. Anyway, the tablet-menus in a restaurant seem notable. I am not sure if this particular one deserves an article, but honestly I couldn't find much about potential competitors. Still, to reduce spam/advertising concerns, a rewrite into a tablet menu or such could be considered (PS. I noticed we have Table ordering tablet). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 21 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.