Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TalkLocal (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [1] [2], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a ~~weakest keep~~. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 23 May 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.