Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallWave, Inc.

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CallWave, Inc.

Article presents no verifiable notability and has been removed previously (under this name and CallWave) at least 4 times as spam. Calltech (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in the usual way. WilyD 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That they've issued press releases? Powers ^T 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That the New York Times, a notable, reliable, third party publication with global reach chooses to publish articles about them. Try sending a press release to the New York Times, see if they publish it. WilyD 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not claiming to be notable, either, though. Have these press releases appeared in the physical paper, or just online? Powers ^T 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure. This would've been on physical paper, as would this and this, for instance (many other examples are easy to locate), but it shouldn't matter anyhow. Wily D 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appearance of a review in a paper-and-ink publication no longer holds the weight it might once have, given the slow demise of print publications and their replacement by online entities. It'd be anachronistic and ironic for Wiki editors to give undo influence to reportage in print publications. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that depends on what you consider "undue", doesn't it? My point was that the NYT could easily reprint hundreds of press releases each day by placing them online. Doing so requires very little effort and no independent reporting at all. Printing them in the newspaper isn't much more difficult, but does require some sort of selection criteria to be applied due to limited print space. That, at least, would begin to show that a major news organization found the company notable. Online, though, about all it means is that they have a stock ticker symbol and a press agent. Powers ^T 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In any event, as I note above, slightly less big deal, but still big deal publications (such as the San Francisco Chronicle) have stamped articles about the company onto dead trees. Wily D 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - SF article is a little iffy. Its about a stock upgrade from the underwriter of CallWav (which he fully discloses) and he also discloses he is under contract with the company. Not a neutral and reliable source. Ironically and practically, the stock tanked right after the "upgrade" (which supports the reliability argument) and is now trading under a buck (Yahoo Finance, note March 2005, the date of the article). You may argue that just being mentioned in the SF Chronicle is sufficient, but I believe the quality, accuracy and neutrality of the content needs to be considered. The other articles you cited appear to be fluff that fits the pattern Jim Ward found. Most of these articles rely heavily on company provided information. If being listed on an exchange is sufficient notability, then they are notable. The most notable reference I found while researching this company comes from Forbes The 'Freemium' Fallacy, 12-2008. Here Gene Marks, the author, disparages companies such as CallWav who build business models that try to provide "Free" products and services (hoping to gain popularity and selling out to bigger companies who bundle them with their services). In this article, he cites CallWav's lack of success and its current attempts to reinvent itself. When combined with CallWav's deteriorating financial situation (selling off assets and declining revenue and asset value - again per Yahoo Finance, News [1] [2]) and with its alleged billing schemes, its hard to see what is so notable about this company (unless these negatives define its notability). When you read CallWave, Inc. (as previously written and even currently), you would not learn any of this. But that's because it is written by someone who does not have a neutral perspective and appears intent on promoting the company and its products. This SPA also authored another CallWav article FUZE Meeting which describes their new product. This article was recently removed by AFD. This author proceeded to relist even after his deletion challenge was unanomously rejected (The closing Admin advised against relisting, although one user did say he would not be opposed). Calltech (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Callwave distributes press releases through Business Wire which are picked up and listed in the Business section of the NYT, among scores of other publications. That's hardly the same as independent journalism or analysis on the company. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Using Google search and pointers to media coverage on Callwave's own web site, I haven't been able to locate any reportage that's not traceable to a company press release. Most article edits are by an SPA who appears to be conflicted given that his or her user page is a blatant advertisement for a Callwave product. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all due respect to Powers's ingenious arguments about the New York Times, the NYT is still patently, obviously and, I think, undeniably, a reliable source.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About what in the world are you talking? I never claimed the NYT was unreliable. I claimed that the simple republishing of press releases online is not evidence of notability. Powers ^T 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That claim strong conflicts with WP:N though, which says if an independent publisher chooses to publish material about you, you're notable. If the New York Times published my memoirs, I'd be notable, even though I wrote the memoirs. WilyD 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - WP:N does not claim that if an independent publisher chooses to publish material about a topic, it's notable. Rather, it says that publication of such material is one criterion for notability. It must be viewed holistically with other requirements. Applicable to this discussion, it says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and […] is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

So, a mention in the NYT unto itself does not meet the bar set by WP:N, irrespective of whether it's in print or online. If it did, anyone and anything ever covered by mainstream media could legitimately be the topic of an article. (Can we agree that such a policy would set the bar much too low?) Instead, it's up to editors to evaluate the whole article to see if it satisfies the entire spirit of WP:N. We ought to be talking about significance of the subject and its news coverage, rather than that of the NYT. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about mentions, though, but articles about the company. Mentions may or may not be trivial, but articles are nontrivial. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wily D 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC); this signing note was added by Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

- - - (edit conflict) Take another look at the general notability guideline. It requires "significant coverage" that is "independent of the subject". In fact, it specifically excludes press releases because they are not independent. Publishing something the length of a memoir is different; it may indicate notability simply because it's so rare for a news organization to do so. Aside from that extreme example, though, the notability conferred by reliable news organizations is conferred by virtue of the organization choosing to spend time and money researching the topic and writing the content, not by virtue of simply choosing to reprint someone else's work. Powers ^T 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you issue a press release, that's not independent publishing. But when it's picked up and republished independently, then it's independent. Wily D 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your reading of that provision is not supported by the longstanding consensus on the issue. Take a look at the sixth footnote: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Just because it appears on the NYT web site does not mean it's notable. Powers ^T 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is actually quite clear in WP guidelines WP:ORG that press releases, no matter who picks them up or publishes them, are not independent analysis and thus criteria for establishing notability. Here's the exact quote:
        The "secondary sources" in the criterion include ... except for the following: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
        
        Clearly the NYT falls into the "other people" category. Back to the practicality of this discussion, WP also makes it clear that just being a listed company does not necessarily mean you are notable. The NYT is simply picking up paid press releases from the company (like it does for every other "listed" company) and prints it. It also puts a disclaimer at the bottom saying this was provided by the company. There is absolutely no independent analysis and research when you are simply providing readers with copies of company generated PR materials. Otherwise, every listed company would be notable. Calltech (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable company based on reputable newspaper reports and significant web presence. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:18, 1 April 2009 (GMT)
Comment. User:FabulosWorld, the primary contributor to this article and its corresponding article FUZE Meeting, has been blocked indefinitely for COI (WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:FabulosWorld) and for sock puppetry (WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/FabulosWorld/Archive) while engaging in edits and arguments on these article talk pages and during the AFD and appeal discussions. This user used multiple identities to hide his association with this company and to create the appearance of support when attacking other users who disagreed with him. I understand there is a disagreement here about the notability of this company, but given the fact that the content of both of these articles came from a deceptive user, I again recommend that BOTH of these articles be deleted and Salted as proposed by Jim Ward. Calltech (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The decision as to whether or not the article should remain should be based on the merits (or otherwise) of the article, not of its contributors! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep (see rationale for change below) - based on the fact (AFAICS) that the only "independent" coverage thus far seems to be the NYT reprint of the press release. This is not truly independent, and I believe that it doesn't indicate any real notability, mostly for the arguments already expounded by others above. If real, independent, non-trivial sources can be found, then I would be prepared to alter my "vote". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a meandering discussion, but The San Francisco Chronicle and a few other publications have written stories about them as well - links are studded through-out this discussion. WilyD 19:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, I didn't spot those links. Whilst the SF discussion of the share price isn't particularly compelling, the other two articles (Kansas and Chicago) look like they could indeed be non-trivial coverage. It's a little difficult to know exactly how much depth they go into without paying for the articles, hence I've changed my "vote" to "weak keep". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.