Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDreamBooks

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 with no prejudice against re-nomination due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP unfortunately - most, if not all, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch, and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders) -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I can say whether I think this Wikipedia article should be kept or deleted, I would like to understand the argument in favor of deletion better.

To start with, I am not sure I understand the claim that the coverage is 'not independent of subject'. Consider e.g. the article in Huffington Post. Yes, it includes some statements from the founders of IDreamBooks. But a big part of the article is completely independent of those statements. Surely, just because one part of the article reports statements by the subject, that doesn't mean that therefore the entire article is 'tainted'?

I also don't understand why it counts against notability that the sources mostly covered the company launch. After all, they were covering the launch precisely because they found the company notable. Related to that, I don't understand the criticism that the coverage is 'routine'. I would understand this criticism if a source was obliged to cover all events of similar nature (i.e. all company launches or something like that). For example, suppose someone claims that a certain proposed federal agency rule deserves a Wikipedia article because that proposed rule is quoted in the Federal Register. In that case, I would agree that notability hasn't been established. After all, the Federal Register is obliged to publish all federal government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. Even the most 'boring' and non-notable rules get published there, because it's the purpose of the Federal Register to publish all such rules. But the sources used in the IDreamBooks are not like that. They weren't obliged to cover IDreamBooks by some automatic rule. On the contrary, they had to make a conscious choice to cover it. --Reuqr (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reuqr, I'll take a shot at trying to explain - I'm sure others will offer their own methodology/opinion. First, because this is a company/organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and for me, the two most relevant sections are WP:CORPDEPTH and [[WP:ORGIND[[ (especially the part about "Independent Content"). So when I look at a reference, I first ignore everything said by a person associated with the organization (executive, customer, partner, etc), everything likely provided by the company (announcement details, boilerplate descriptions that appear in multiple articles, etc) and look at what is remaining. I then ask myself "Does what remains meet WP:CORPDEPTH?" When I look at the HuffPost article, the first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem". The third paragraph is a company description but it isn't very unique as it is very similar to other articles featuring the company around that time especially the comparison to Rotten Tomatoes (close to a "boilerplate") - for example, check out here. For me, what remains doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Others may differ in their conclusion. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Reuqr - detailed analysis of what the company is about doesn't cease to be significant coverage or independent just because the company's founder or CEO is quoted within the article. That small portion of the source might be considered primary, but that doesn't extend to the material written by an independent journalist and published with editorial oversight. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the sentiments expressed by Stalwart111 but when you remove the information provided by the exec and the company, there isn't enough remaining to meet CORPDEPTH (I always assume RS unless blatently obvious so independent journalist with editorial oversight is the same as WP:RS). We require multiple (at least two) references that meet NCORP, nothing I can find does so we don't even have one. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 25 September 2021 (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.