Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (4th 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice[edit]

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

Fourth nom. No reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. It was kept to be rewritten twice in the period 2005-2006, deleted once, and forgotten since. Nobody has improved it, and the keep arguments from back then are laughable ("WP:ITSNOTABLE" because WP:ITSIMPORTANT/"it comes up in google"). Sigh. Let's throw this garbage where it belongs: in the deletion bin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. The previous "debate" was entirely laughable. My own searches turned up nothing useful, just a few "and this company also sells one" kind of mentions. I could find absolutely nothing that might remotely be described multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. If someone is more successful than I was and can find the necessary sources, I'm happy to revise my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied by the new sources. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep Here's the issue I'm seeing with this one: it's a Norwegian company based in Norway and most of the good, reliable sources you'll find might be in Norwegian. You can look at the company's Google News listing and see a bunch of Norwegian-language sources. The article as it stands doesn't have any references, but I'm sure there's something in those Norwegian sources to be found. Even a basic Google web search brings up a ton of Norwegian language sources. My argument isn't that the company appears in Google searches, it's that the company appears extensively in Norwegian language websites. Of course, this is a "soft keep" because I don't know how good those Norwegian sources are, and it doesn't appear that anyone's actually looked into those sources. Gargleafg (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gargleafg: I am all for non-English sources, and globalization, and such, but we cannot AGF the existence of sources (AGF is for editors, not content). You will see that Talk:24SevenOffice contains WP:NORWAY template. If that project is active enough that they have deletion notifications, and if someone comments here, good. Otherwise, we cannot keep it "because maybe there are Norwegian sources, but no Norwegian editor cares to comment". May I suggest that you invite members of that WikiProject from their talk page directly, and we will see if and what they say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG due to ample press coverage. A search in Atekst shows 111 printed newspaper articles since 2004, and a significant number of these seem to be non-trivial. I have added three examples which should in themselves suffice in establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I remarked in my edit summary when I reinstated the notability tag, I'm not satisfied. These new cites look like routine coverage of the company's press releases. It would help if there was even one good source in any language that we could all examine. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three references in question were chosen because there were feature articles in high-circulation newspapers/magazines written by staff journalists. Don't worry, there were ample to chose between. They are all lengthy articles (Kongsnes for instance is 430 words in length) and none are, as you claim, "routine coverage of the company's press releases". There is no requirement that notability be established through the use of English-language sources nor that it be available online. To quote WP:N, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has nothing to do with the language or whether the source is online or not. It has everything to do with the poor quality of the sources you've offered. They appear to me to be routine coverage of the company's press releases. ~~Note, for example, that they are very heavy on quotes from the principals, always suggestive that the material is just routine coverage.~~

Per WP:CORPDEPTH, Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

And from WP:ORGIND, Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except for 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.

I appreciate that you disagree and you have a right to your opinion but I have a right to mine as well. I am simply not convinced by your sources. You do what you like but I'm still !voting delete. Msnicki (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers, blue-linked in the article, look reliable. Now, I can't read Norwegian, so User:Arsenikk, could you provide a brief summary of the sources? What is their primary topic, how many sentences do they devote to the article, are they quoting/reprinting press releases or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, all three articles are staff-written, signed articles. None of them bear sign of being rewritten press releases. The first two are feature-like, i.e. they are telling a broad story without much "newness", while Lyche's article is a clear news story. Kongsnes is 430 words and entirely dedicated to telling the story of the company. It goes to a fair detail through the company's history, business model, recent development and future plans. It is as objective as any normal newspaper article, with no particular bias either for or against the company. This article is exactly the kind of coverage which WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND is claiming establishes notability. Okkelmo is 1722 words, and a general coverage of Norwegian companies expanding to the UK. About a fifth of the article is dedicated to the company in question. Again, it presents a general history of the company and aspects related to the UK expansion. I used it as a reference because it had relevant information, not because it necessarily in itself establishes notability. I have added two more references, with Stenseng being 936 words and Edvardsen being 517. Again, staff-written, signed feature articles giving a presentation of the company, its production, operations, history and plans. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that's only 430 or even 1722 words (especially when only about 350 of them are about the subject) and only tells just the kind of stuff a company would report on its "about us" page or in a press release is not "feature-like". More important, to be a WP:SECONDARY source, it must provide the author's own thinking and the author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas. What you've described doesn't do that. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be of some value here if people were aware that Dagens Næringsliv and Stavanger Aftenblad, to mention two of the sources used, practice what has become the widespread norm over here namely to post online only a small foretaste of the entire article found in print and e-print. Counting words in the online articles is an exercise in futility. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to have been copied originally from the Norwegian Wikipedia article (translated here). They don't have any sources there, either. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Msnicki. Searches showed nothing to indicate the notability of this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:HEY, hang on! -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and that's a very clear keep: there are sources available to establish notability far above the minimum WP:NCORP. I'll be working on the article when time permits. There are at least 20 more refs currently in my source stack to be added. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded "this garbage" four days ago with the further addition of some 50-60 references. Sources for 2009-2015 are abundantly available. May we have some feedback from Piotrus and onel5969? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, very good job. If I was voting, I'd change to abstain, but as the nom I am not sure what I can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've decided the new sources are satisfactory, you may withdraw your nomination and either close it yourself or let someone else do it. For example, here's one I withdrew in a similar situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 10 September 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.