Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cleeng (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . and salt. enough is enough DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cleeng[edit]

Recreation of deleted, salted, and endorsed at DRV article in mainspace. This draft is clearly promotional, and was written by a growth-hacking consultant. Suggest we salt the draft title, as we did for the mainspace title, due to the multiple recreations, often by WP:SPAs and suspected socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this originally, but this draft has already been deleted once, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cleeng for the first XfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the right multiple-mfd-nomination template, but I'm also nominating Draft:Cleeng (2) for deletion (see comments below). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice, and salt the earth like the Russians in a land war. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please liberally salt too Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, I went to move User:Aurick_Shaffer/sandbox to Draft:Cleeng and here we are. Honestly, without knowledge of the history here, I feel like at least the sandbox page is fairly well done and fairly neutral, and with quite a few sources between the two and less than complete overlap. The AfD discussion, having taken place five years ago, seems somewhat less than relevant, as perhaps also does the mainspace salt, given four years have elapsed. Although the DRV discussion is recent, it doesn't seem to have substantially addressed notability, and the first MfD isn't much better. Overall, I'm seeing enough citations around to make me seriously question whether a current AfD would go the same way as it did in 2012, notwithstanding potential long term paid editing issues. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Aurick_Shaffer is a WP:SPA. The account has existed for two days, and every edit they've made is related to Cleeng in some way. Creating the sandbox draft was almost the first thing they did. The draft includes such puffery as Cleeng is featured among the "100 companies that matter most in Online Video", which is a direct quote from LinkedIn and/or Crunchbase. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are lots of SPAs on AfC. AfC is where we put them to provide oversight. As to the "matter most"... it's also a direct quote from... you know... the cited source. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello RoySmith. Hello TimothyJosephWood. Thanks for the review. I am very new to Wikipedia, and I am student who uses streaming sites a lot, and I just love them, which made me take something related to that, as my first topic. For Cleeng's page, I got things wrong for the first time, however, my reviewer helped me with his valuable insights, and my reworked draft has neutral tone, with relevant references. I believe it meets all the Wikipedia rules, now. Please let me know if I am wrong.

P.S. And, since I am new to Wikipedia, I am not much aware of the technical terms, I am learning them. Aurick Shaffer (talk)

Keep - At least the user space draft. No one here has addressed notability at all that I can see (which is the core issue AfC is supposed to be evaluating), and if the most egregious promotionalism that can be found in the sandbox version is basically a direct quote from the industry source, that's just not terribly convincing. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did my own searching. I find lots of first-party sources (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Vimeo, etc). And some obligatory mentions in video-industry blogs and such, and likewise the obligatory mentions on the venture capital sites. Nothing that remotely approaches WP:CORPDEPTH. I also tried searching directly in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Found zero mentions in either. I also don't buy that immediately after being deleted in mainspace, and failing review, a new user pops up and creates yet another version of this. They claim not to know much about how Wikipedia works, yet managed to create a perfectly formatted article, with in-line references, an info box, cross-links from other articles, and detailed edit summaries. This is not what you would expect from a new user.

Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a full story from Business Insider, here is a full story from Venture Beat. Looking at actual searches, I see more than 200 results, including this fairly good looking article from Les Echos.

If you'd like to open an SPI you're more than welcome to, but when there's somewhere between 20-40 references between two drafts, it's a bit disingenuous to argue "all is see is facebook and twitter". TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider article doesn't impress me. It is a shallow and obligatory coverage by a tech business website of an early funding round by a tech startup. The Venture Beat article is more detailed, but it suffers from the same problem; VB is a niche publication covering tech and venture capital. I don't consider an article in VB to be sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't read French, so I had to rely on the auto-translation of the Les Echos article. I don't know anything about the publication beyond what I read in our own article; from that, I conclude that it satisfies WP:RS. But, the article itself is three paragraphs, with no more information than you could get from the company's web site (or, more likely, a press release). It meets WP:RS, and it meets WP:V, but it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a prime example of Churnalism. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,

the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,

inclusion in lists of similar organizations,

the season schedule or final score from sporting events,

routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,

brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,

simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,

routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),

routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,

routine restaurant reviews,

quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or

passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not really seeing which one this falls under. You may have to point it out for me. TimothyJosephWood 23:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps less sarcastically, describing Business Insider as shallow and obligatory coverage by a tech business website seems silly on its face, even after you had to admit that there was serious coverage after claiming there was little to nothing besides facebook and twitter. I'd be more than happy to publish the thing and immediately have you nominate for deletion where there is more than you and I trading blows, and a much wider audience than the comparatively seldom traveled MfD.

At the base of it, you didn't vet the sources that were already available with any seriousness and you want to dismiss them with little more than a wave of a hand. Devil's advocate and all, but you know... we're building an encyclopedia, and vengeance against foes over apparently notable subjects doesn't do us very much good. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider article is a slightly warmed-over version of a press release issued by Cleeng. There's no information in the BI article which isn't in the press release. It's the same press release that was picked up by gigaom, and also by The Next Web. That's not significant coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Since it's a direct response to a press release, It conflicts with, any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, and 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, as required by WP:ORGIND. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've stated a conversation on this topic at WT:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Citing_articles_based_on_press_releases. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CORPDEPTH is the wrong part of the alphabet soup to cite here RoySmith, as I commented on the talk conversation about this, I'll bring it here. The sources are excluded by WP:SPIP as counting towards notability because they were distributed for publicity and are not intellectually independent of the subject. SPIP, part of WP:N, makes it clear that simple publication in reliable sources is not enough to meet the notability guideline. Salt per above and per nomination: this is a gaming of the system of a deleted subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was supposed reply on this, but, I was preoccupied with my college assignments. I didn't know it was the topic for which the page creation was attempted, earlier. But, when I searched for more details, I got to know it was way back in 2012 and once in the month of August this year, due to lack of references and promotional content, respectively. But, now there are enough number of references, from notable sources, and the content is also non-promotional. I did read articles about the importance of references before creating this Wikipedia page. I would like to collect more references, which I will be doing in a day or two. And, there was another comment that said, this is a perfectly crafted article, which is impossible to create for a new user. I would like to tell, for the first time, my draft was rejected, as it sounded like an advertisement. Then, I just took some advices from on the reviewers, and got things right. As for the relevance and notability, I have made sure that every sentence has reference.

Lastly, I am new here, and I want some help from very good people like you, which will help me grow and contribute better... Thanks and Cheers, Aurick Shaffer —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 26 August 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.