Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Hundred Monkeys (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. There is a clear consensus in favor of deletion as failing to meet the WP:GNG. bd2412 T 15:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A Hundred Monkeys[edit]

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

The mention in one book is not sufficient for notability, and there does not seem to be anything else DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one reference/award - doesn't denote notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article subject features prominently in this NYT article entitled "The Weird Science of Naming New Products". I also could have sworn there was a New Yorker piece in the last couple of years about the company but I haven't managed to find it yet. A Train^talk 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um ... the article subject gets a passing mention in the article and the CEO gets a quote. That article doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notability - it is not in-depth (fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't disagree, which I why I posted a comment and not a keep argument. A Train^talk 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Possibly a keyword issue -- a search for "100 Monkeys" turns up the "Weird Science" article from the New York Times because it explains the company's name using exactly that phrase: "Put 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters." A search for "A Hundred Monkeys" returns two New York Times articles, 13 years apart, that cover the company specifically and extensively, How To Invent a Brand Name and Education Technology Companies Play the Name Game, in addition to articles that include quotes from A Hundred Monkeys principles in 2002, 2000, and 2014. JSFarman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The subject of this article lacks notability and the references have nothing to do with the actual company. Instead, the references are works of the company's creative director. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a rewrite, but A Hundred Monkeys meets GNG and NCORP. In addition to the New York Times coverage noted in my comment above, there's Salon, Slate , Fast Company , the BBC, NBC News/Inc., The Globe and Mail, and others that can be found via a search for "A Hundred Monkeys," rather than "100 Monkeys." JSFarman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to meet the criteria, it must be "intellectually independent" and ideally containing some in-depth information on the company. It should not be based on company announcements or quotations from company personnel as these are not only PRIMARY sources, but the resultant articles are not considered intellectually independent. This New York Times reference you point to above is based on an interview with Altman with no in-depth information on the company and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This NYT reference relies on an affiliated source (a customer) and quotations from Altman with no in-depth information on the company and similarly fails because it is not intellectually independent, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I cannot access the Salon reference (404 error). The slate.com reference is from a blog and therefore fails as blogs are not considered reliable sources. Even if it was considered reliable, it also fails because is relies on interviews with and information recived from Altman (again) and while it discussed some of the methodology (according to Altman) it contains no in-depth information on the actual company. The article fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The fastcompany.com reference suffers from the exact same issues as all the others. It is not intellectually independent as it relies exclusively on interviews with Altman with no independent opinion or analysis and has no in-depth information on the company. It fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The BBC article fails ... same reasons ... that Altman guy just loves being interviewed. The nbcnews article ... yup, you've seen the pattern by now! Fails, Altman at it again. No in-depth info, etc. Finally, the theglobeademail.com reference same old failings although at least we can see a photo of Altman this time. The bottom line is that no, finding mentions of this company in various publications is not enough. The references themselves must be intellectually independent and these one are clearly not. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the Salon article, but I suspect that you'll have the same issue with it as you have with the other references. (I can't argue your points - I don't know as much about policy as you do - my keep was based simply on seeing the AfD, thinking "wrong search terms," and finding what I perceived as extensive coverage via reliable independent sources.) JSFarman (talk) 13:57, 9 October 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.