Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KeepTruckin

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. Good arguments for keeping and deleting, about the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTruckin

[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)

None of the references here are sufficiently substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, to show notability , but rather press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Added references from more third-party sources, including one from CNBCTV that helps establish notability. Generally improved the article by adding categories, see also section, and making it not read like an advertisement. Let me know if this can be improved further! Waisybabu ( talk ) 9:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable independent sources with significant coverage have been added since nomination to meet GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NCORP requires significant *in-depth* coverage with "Independent Content" which most of the references fail.
- Youtube Interview with the CEO is not Independent Content, fails ORGIND
- Freightwaves announcement on "nominations" for their award only lists the logo and name, not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH
- Forbes "sites" fails as a reliable source.
- Techcrunch article is entirely based on a company announcement with all information provided by the company/founder, same information and even the same quotes from the CEO as many other similar articles such as this exact same article in Angel Investors, this from Crunchbase and even their own blog post, fails ORGIND
- this from Forbes is Forbes announcing the candidates for their Cloud100 in list form, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
- This second from TechCrunch is what we refer to as an "advertorial", a promotional company profile with all information provided by the company masquerading as news. Fails ORGIND
- This review in TechRadar is pretty good. Except it's very odd that the journalist's profile says he writes on a wide range of topics including "Gadgets, smartphones, reviews, games, software, apps, deep tech, AI, and consumer electronics". No mentions of trucking experience - so how could he actually review the software? Then we see that he says in the review "Based on a quite a few reviews left by different verified users online ..." and you realise that nowhere in the review does the journalist recount any of his own personal experience. This is a sham review, all positive and listing every possible feature - essentially its promotion and reads like a company brochure. Fails ORGIND
- This next from FreightWaves is part of the promotion around the "relaunch" of KeepTruckin towards the end of 2020,with a new software platform launched earlier that same month. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- WSJ and CCJ articles are based entirely on an announcement of funding, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- VentureBeat article based entirely on an announcement of funding, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND

None of the references are anything more than company-produced PR. Fair play to their marketing dept but it doesn't qualify for the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I randomly selected two article and found them both to meet the GNG. The techradar article is great. Yes, I see the comments above, and yes, the author appears to have gathered information from a number of sources rather than used this as a truck driver. But so what? Nothing in the GNG says that's not a valid way to write an article. The WSJ article also seems fine. It comments on the financial situation and products of the company. HK and I often disagree about what counts as reliable and independent. This is another case of that. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We use NCORP for organizations, it provides the correct way to interpret sources for notability. Sources must meet ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. A closing admin will be aware of this and probably discount your !vote if you're using GNG instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your views about things like "he appeared to have never used it, so his reviews don't count" can be said to be related to the SNG vs GNG issue here. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True on that level but you're overlooking the fact that the "review" is about the product with no "Independent Content" nor "In-depth information" on the company, the topic of this article. You're also ignoring you based your !vote on the WSJ article which deffo fails NCORP. So me pointing out that you're measuring the references against the wrong guideline is relevant. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt any "vote" invoking GNG will be discounted. Both SNG and GNG cover the same issue here: are available sources sufficient or not? For some of our editors even few paragraphs of independent coverage in a reliable source is more than enough, others have much higher requirements. Pavlor (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they'll deffo be discounted based on your assumption that "even few paragraphs of independent coverage in a reliable source is more than enough". That waffley garbage is precisely the reason why Wikipedia is stuffed with promotional articles on organizations/products and why those same organizations treat Wikipedia as their own promotional resource and why NCORP has been tightened up specifically to require clear-cut "Independent Content" and "In-depth information". HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is better for their product, then the company itself.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 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.