Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensole

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pensole[edit]

Pensole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my extensive PROD which shows all this company has for itself and actually then starts by its own actions is PR and that alone, the listed sources and information are either merely satisfying the company's own needs for PR or repeating their own PR words, none of this establishes independent or notability, let alone non-advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Some starter examples of those sources:
Any WP:NPOV issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and an invalid reason for deletion of a notable organization. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a trade school, not an accredited degree awarding institution. It gives 11 week courses in various aspects of a particular trade. Honestly, does it offer a Bachelor's of High-tops? At best, this place might give you a certification that holds no real validity. Its association with other schools is covered by WP:INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as creator. Also, unless the nominator works for these publications, how do they "know" the authors just repeated what the organization is saying. Not to mention, where in the GNG does it say that if all an author does is repeat what the sources say, then suddenly there can be no notability? It does not, because this is how news general works. Now, if all the sources lacked a byline for an author, then you would have something, but I think all of the articles have an author byline. Frankly, none of the "criteria" listed by the nominator actually exists in GNG, it is just that editor's opinion. In the end, there are multiple sources over several years (and there are more recent ones) about this entity by a variety of news outlets. The fact that it is a for-profit school does not matter, as we do not have a special criteria for those. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Actually, the existence of the Fast Company satisfies WP:AUD. This is a monthly paid print magazine that is based in New York, New York (see link), and has a nationwide circulation totaling 757,858 (2012). Also, the MarketWatch source also satisfies WP:AUD; it is owned by Dow Jones & Company, which is based in New York City. Pensole is based in Portland, Oregon. North America1000 09:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are pretty bad. This is no "School" but rather a private institution. Half the sources are local sources failing WP:AUD and the other half are trade journals and startup media which should not be considered independent sources (redressing of press releases doesn't make them independent). In addition some of the sources are actually basing the story on the quotes of an employee (which is explicitly not allowed per WP:ORGIND! None of this helps to satisfy WP:NORG. This is a small recently opened academy and not yet actually notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this notion is not on the guideline page at all. There is nothing there that "every source" has to satisfy AUD whatsoever. See the bold emphasis I provided below, part of where it states "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". "At least one" certainly does not mean "all", not by any stretch of the imagination. I understand that you want the article deleted, but your analysis of the guideline page is flawed. The guideline page states the following I have copied below. North America1000 09:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline defines a minimum On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It doesn't say that simply having 1 regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source guarantees notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the MarketWatch source is essentially quoting the founder for the vast majority of the article/facts and this is not useful for notability per WP:CORPIND other works in which 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. Also using the founder's quotes as a story source is considered routine per WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you worded matters above, you stated that all sources must satisfy WP:AUD to qualify under NCORP, "Every source (for the purpose of NCORP) needs to satisfy WP:AUD" This is simply not the case at all. Also, I have made no claim of "guaranteed notability" here. Regardless, two available sources do satisfy WP:AUD for this topic. Also, reporters sometimes speak with people involved in the topics they cover; it would be biased for them not to. North America1000 09:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sources are not independent, they are not useful for notability at all. If the source which might satisfy WP:AUD doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND, it is just not useful for notability. So the question of WP:AUD doesn't matter in this case. Literally more than half of the Marketwatch article is (actual/paraphrased) quotes by the founder which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition some of the sources are actually basing the story on the quotes of an employee (which is explicitly not allowed per WP:ORGIND![citation needed]
  • A quote or some from company employees does not mean it fails AUD or CORPDEPTH or CORPIND. If you actually spend time reading the business section of your newspaper or say a business journal for a major city, you can easily learn what CORPIND is mean to exclude. This "article" is one that does not provide notability to BNI. This also is what CORPIND is meant to exclude. Same with this one that has no author byline. But articles with reporter's byline's attached are usually considered independent. Also, for the millionth time, The Oregonian is not a local newspaper, it is a large regional paper. Same with the Portland Business Journal, it is the regional business paper for Oregon and SW Washington. Follow the link in AUD that will explain a local/regional newspaper, and since The Oregonian does not cover only part of a large city, it is regional. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:CORPDEPTH

    Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except...quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources

  • From WP:CORPIND

    Sources used to support a claim of notability include...except the following...other works in which 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.

    --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice cherry picking. The "except" to CORPDEPTH is in regards to trivial coverage, not that quotes disqualify an article from providing notability. There are literally articles out there on companies or organizations that are a sentence or two announcing that the company issued a press release, followed by the press release, and similar types of articles. Those are of the type that do not confer notability. Articles like this are similar, and what CORPIND are meant to address. Also, re-printed dos not actually mean printed by others, but the actual "re-print" as in if a press release is "re-printed" in another source. That is, re-printing the entire press release is a re-print, quoting from it is not re-printed. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline is pretty clear that using "quotes as story sources" is an example of trivial coverage which cannot be used for CORPDEPTH. The reason behind this is that when journalists attribute quotes to the employee, they are technically not required to fact-check the information themselves. This reduces the source to claims by an employee. In such a source, the actual amount of secondary coverage is not in-depth. The guideline doesn't specify that reprinting is only about about reprinting the entire press release - in fact no one reprints entire press releases these days. The press release is often redressed and put out as news (such as this "news" in Oregon Live and this actual press release). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, the guidleine does not define reprint. Why, because it does not need to since it has a meaning already. You are confusing re-print/reprint with quoting, and those are different words.
  • "The reason behind this is that when journalists attribute quotes to the employee, they are technically not required to fact-check the information themselves."[citation needed] That would depend on the media organization, as there are no laws.
  • Otherwise, there is a big difference between an article with a byline that quotes a source (who else are they supposed to get info from about a company, other than the company?) and one that has no reporter byline, or a byline to an employee. The first adds to notability, the other does not. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these listed sources are and have in fact been (above) cited and analyzed as not being independent or substantial, the local Business Journals are now largely notorious and known for accepting and publishing local advertising and PR, and it has been so blatant and damning, it is no longer actually listed as a convincing source, let alone something significant; the next one is that the sources themselves, including MarketWatch and the other ones are simply advertising what the company wants to say about itself and its company, hence advertising, regardless of where it was published. This is exactly why churnalism exists in these sources, because of such blatantly obvious cases of company-influenced or initiated advertising.
There interviews are also blatant cases of simply advertising the company and this has been established as it is; there we cannot simply state "interviews are good" without actually considering the damages they cause because it means anyone could be interviewed about any single thing, and hence it would be mistakenly called "significant" or "coverage" (literally see above where it is stated the company businesspeople and employees themselves either supplied company information or simply republished their own company quotes); that emphasizes the blatancy of company advertising and it's something we should not take lightly as "well, at least they were republished PR, that must mean something". Also, it would essentially be the same thing as accepting sources which blatantly contain said republished PR such as "The company supplied this information" or "this journalist is a special contributor here today" (which is quite common here), showing how the article was curiously not by the publication itself at all. We are in fact capable of fixing and keeping this Wikipedia guaranteed non-PR, we simply have to be hard and serious about it. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what does all of this have to do with Allan Brettman, a reporter for The Oregonian? There are I believe 5 articles over about 3 years by him alone, and sportswear is part of his beat (keep in mind footwear is a rather big industry in the Portland area, thus why both the PBJ and The Oregonian cover it extensively). I would also argue the same as to the articles written by Kish and Siemers at the PBJ, as not every article in the business journals is crap. Yes, there are many examples of what you describe, but that is not the case here. I have provided examples of how you can pick out the crap from actual articles. I also have a general aversion to your anti-company stance. Honestly, should we also have less articles on politicians since they send out press releases? For better or worse, journalism has often revolved around press releases, as how else do journalists know when there is something to report? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Fast Company article and the extensive and substantive Oregonian coverage are sufficient to pass GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pensole&oldid=1089522913"