Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rantic

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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rantic[edit]

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

Blatant PR for a "company" that does not even exist. The primary editor(s) has/have attempted to create this and several similar articles on numerous occasions, apparently succeeding this time on the "strength" of the sources. However, a quick check thereof shows:

Alexa – ranking claims #54,496 on 23 December 2014; ranking on 10 March 2015 shows #246,358, dropping off the chart in October
NYT, blog by Nick Bilton – mentions swenzy.com, which no longer exists; does not mention Rantic
The Daily Dot – mentions SocialVEVO; does not mention Rantic
news.com.au – source says 4chan users "defaced the website for SocialVevo’s latest ruse, Rantic.com" (emphasis mine)
"ETC News" – two guys with a podcast
New York Media (nymag.com) – Notes that "Rantic itself doesn't actually exist, but is instead the work of the prolific pranksters behind another countdown hoax. Made up of people who go by the names Jacob Povolotski, Yasha Swag, Swenzy, and Joey B, the group is occasionally referred to as "SocialVEVO.'" (emphasis mine)

... and I stopped there. "Rantic itself doesn't actually exist" was enough to convince me that it should not have an encyclopedia article, either. Add its repeated use of "allege(d)" and a "reportedly", it becomes both a PROMO and a NOTNEWS vio. (Edit: updated edits by the main author[s] do not thus far alleviate the issues.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions per the September 2014 deletion of the closely related FoxWeekly. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the gawker, Washington post, the daily dot, the guardian articles which is the most up to date and talks about Rantic and what the business does. The New York mag article is a outdated one. SocialVEVO and Swenzy are former names and is reported in the up to date latest articles that I listed above. 98.249.241.179 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way this article can survive even under those parameters is if the existence of the "company" and what it does as a "company" is written and cited to pass GNG, otherwise it also fails INHERITORG by standing on its own PR for itself. All evidence of its aggrandizement would have to be removed. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination statement rather contradicts itself saying both that the article is promoting a company and that the company doesn't exist. Um, that isn't possible - make up your mind as to your argument before making one... As to notability, the company (or fake company) has been covered by numerous reliable sources (no one would debate this, I'd think). Why it attracted such attention is pretty irrelevant - coverage, not importance, conveys notability. Let's say the company is really the work of prolific hoaxsters (seems to be RS consensus). So what? Then it is a notable hoax instead of a notable company. Essentially this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The only real question is what to name the article - any of the various names used for the hoax should suffice, I'd think, but regardless that is not a question for AfD. Pinging @Kikichugirl: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that a legitimate proposal based on encyclopedic policy would be met with the assumption of good faith. Thank you. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about bad faith? I'm sure your nomination is in good faith, but that doesn't mean I can't critique it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, thank you. Your critique seemed aimed at the nom rather than the subject. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I may have seen this AfD coming, but Rantic if I'm not wrong is a hoax company - so yes, it exists but it doesn't at the same time, if you get what I mean. Essentially, that (the hoax) is what Rantic is notable for. Whether or not this article has false claims is another story, but AfD isn't cleanup, and it's a pretty well-sourced article. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add only that you're quite right, it's very well-sourced, which is probably why it's in article space to begin with. Any rewrite would need to be massive in scope largely because, in my view (and I'm not alone), there's a massive difference between a hoax and a self-serving publicity stunt. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have severe doubts about that article being "well-sourced". Most of those sources were added by an IP editor who is associated with Rantic and earlier tried to pass off a Rantic/SocialVEVO-affiliate faux news site as a reliable source, and that editor is prone to misrepresenting the sources and introducing subtle untruths. The article sure looks well-sourced, but I wouldn't trust a single claim in that article without personally having looked up the reference cited for that claim, and if it's quoting someone associated with Rantic, it's probably quoting lies. Huon (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-on. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it doesn't exist legitimately, It doesn't get an article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, you could send the Cottingley Fairies to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice discussion in multiple sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, we are okay to cover notable hoaxes that third-party sources cover, even if they're on Wikipedia (eg: this) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (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.