Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVNT Group

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INVNT Group

[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)

Nominating this based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVNT, which was an article about INVNT Group's subsidiary. My main concern comes in regards to whether the trade publications establish notability. TLA^tlak 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News wires, PR items, nothing much for coverage. This is pure PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I encourage all contributors to this AfD to read the linked AfD. There is detailed analysis of source tables, which leads to a conclusion that neither the parent nor subsidiary is notable. Trade publications are not sufficient in this context, even in great number. Local Variable (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked through the sources in the article and read through the subsidiary company AfD. Not seeing any sources that fully meet WP:SIRS. Rupples (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - INVNT which previously got deleted is a subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. While some news references cover both entities, not all do. Hence what happened with INVNT should not influence the outcome here. Here are some of the better sources for this company that show it meets WP:NCORP: thedrum, Exeleon Magazine, Reader's Digest, Event Industry News, CEO World. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are absolutely not reliable sources in the context of NCORP (and the higher degree of scrutiny it requires). The problems with the Reader's Digest source was explained by @AusLondonder: in the last AfD: it's plainly promotional. Local Variable (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the INVNT AFD, there were claims suggesting that Reader's Digest post is an advertisement. Nonetheless, I believe that such a reputable publication would not jeopardize its integrity by violating laws concerning the disclosure of paid advertisements or sponsorships. It is legally mandated to disclose any such financial relationships. Imagine the PR nightmare such publication would have if it was discovered that they have posted Ads without disclosures. Additionally, the FTC imposes substantial fines on publications that fail to disclose advertisements (up to $46K USD per incident). Reader's Digest is not a mom and pop publication to risk such fines. You can also check this example here of an article they posted that clearly indicates "Promoted Content," and THIS ONE states "Unbiased Partnership," so if anyone is claiming that Reader's Digest is posting undisclosed paid ads, you better provide solid evidence.

Most of the remaining articles I provided have detailed coverage about INVNT Group. While it is your opinion that they are not reliable sources, it is my opinion that they are. None of these publications are mom and pop and all have editorial oversight.

In addition here are some traffic stats from these publications for last month from similarweb.com:

ReadersDigest.co.uk 1.2 Million visits

thedrum.com 2.1 million visits

ceoworld.biz/ 1.1 Million Visits

exeleonmagazine.com/47K visits

eventindustrynews.com/ 33k Visits Icesnowgeorge (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've ever come across a reliable source that uses a .biz TLD. Local Variable (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Drum: Well, for starters, it's written by the managing director of the company. Not WP:INDEPENDENT at all.

2. Exeleon Magazine: It looks like you can fill out a form to get featured. I don't think this is a RS either.

3. Reader's Digest: This post contains affiliate links, so we may earn a small commission when you make a purchase through links on our site at no additional cost to you. Read our disclaimer. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.

4. Event Industry News: This article is brought to you in association with Macroart. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.

5. CEO World: Not WP:RELIABLE, per this. TLA^tlak 10:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own analysis of the sources largely backs up User:I'm tla.

The Drum fails WP:ORGIND - written by the MD of one of the subsidiaries

Exelon doubtful independence for notability. The magazine's About us Exeleon Magazine is one of the leading global platform for leaders and entrepreneurs to showcase their story[1] Note "their story", companies/people ask to be featured, drafts sent back for approval[2] so basically writes what the company says about itself.

Readers Digest. The article explains what 'brand storytelling' is and there is a bit about the company interspersed with quotes from company executives. Tells the reader what the company does, lists awards and a brief history. May satisfy WP:SIRS criteria, but it doesn't have much depth.

Event Industry News. Trade journal, mostly not to be used to establish notability WP:TRADES. Basically, it's showcasing the company.If your agency has a fitting story to tell, get in touch[3]

CEO World. Looks independent. Most of the article concentrates on Scott Cullather but there is some content on the company and the piece is written in a neutral way; still, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH

Overall, the Readers Digest piece is the only one which may count towards notability, but I'm not altogether convinced. Rupples (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Reader's Digest piece is puffery and relies on quotes and information from the company and execs, for me it is not Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 8 April 2024 (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.