Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphiq

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Also added {{primary sources|date=March 2017}} to the article. (non-admin closure) J947 02:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphiq[edit]

Graphiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear company-webhosted advertising and also contributed by clear involved employees and affiliates, there's no automatic inherited inherited notability from anything or anyone and all sources here are either their own websites or press releases, including the supposedly independent ones since they themselves quote, label or source the company itself which wouldn't satisfy our simplest policies since we always need genuine independent sources. Searches found nothing but clear published and republished business announcements. Our policies are stated as non-negotiable against company webhosts g because it's unacceptable in an encyclopedia. In fact, what confirms this was and still is a company-hosted advertisement, the talk page has a label that states "User was paid for their contributions". To analyze the current sources:

  • 1 is company profile
  • 2 is same (company website)
  • 3 is a trade publication profiling the company's own images
  • 4 is same as 1-2
  • 5 is same above
  • 6 is same above
  • 7 is same above
  • 8 is another clearly labeled trade publication press release
  • 9 is trivial
  • 10 is same as before
  • 11 is company profile
  • 12-20 is same again
  • 21 is company website
  • 22 is company press release
  • 23-25 is same
  • 26 is company website
  • 27-28 are same as earlier
  • None of this satisfies our simplest standards WP:CORPDEPTH which says coverage must be independent significant and not trivial. In considerations to the above, my searches instantly found pages of PR: see
  • First 10 are clear PR
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • 10 is same
  • Until the pages actually start repeating the links.
  • Also, of the current sources, they all fit the above criteria:
  • 1 is a press release in trade publisher
  • 2 is trivial, wherever published
  • 3 is a mere announcement
  • 4 is again
  • 5 is again
  • 6 is same as 1, complete with the mirrored PR consistency
  • 7 is exactly same as above
  • GNG has never been an immediate policy because we as an encyclopedia control what we accepted, not a mere guideline that says itself "may be presumed [but not guaranteed]".

SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Note that the sources listed below are not aligned with the chronology presented in the deletion nomination above. North America1000 06:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment and analysis - These are the same exact sources analyzed above in terms of publication because:
  • 1 is a "starting company" PR piece
  • 2 is a trivial mention in a tech blog (regardless of name)
  • 3 is another tech publication
  • 4, 5, 6 and 7 are same
  • 8 is a trivial mention alongside the notables of Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. so notability is not inherited
  • 9, 10, 11 and 12 are clear PR including the given label of the company's involvements, a clear criteria by WP:CORPDEPTH ("routine notices, announcements and mentions will not establish notability"). Shown how they're not satisfying both our standards and policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the second recent proposal for deletion of this article. I like the above 'References' listing and would favor adding the new items in it to the new 'Further reading' section in the article with a request to emphasize the norm to future editors -- "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself." Beyond that, while it's not complete I'm going to rest for now my favoring keeping the article on the Further reading (with 'External links' maybe the better heading for the section) plus my response to the first proposal. Swliv (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your policy for showing we accept these articles? Because the two we always use here are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:What Wikipedia is not and "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself" when it's not satisfying said policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your blizzard of numbers. What's wrong with '7' for example, NYTimes? Number of employees; how people work there; reach; type of databases; do I need to go on? have you bothered to look? What about the Fox News cite (and I give the DoubleClick good weight too) from my first response? It's not a top rank article but it's something, real, in a fast-moving market I know I don't understand well. I was glad to find it (finally) on the "moose-" hunt and glad to improve it so it would help more encyclopedia users find, appreciate and hopefully improve it in the future. The 'patent troll' lawsuits? They don't interest me enough at the moment to do more than say 'Fine in External links' but they are independent enough for me for WP:GNG if you really need a policy to see the basic functionality. What is inherently wrong with "tech publications"? And how is the NYTimes a "tech publication"? I don't understand your approach: Ignoring my first Talk post. Shunting off to this second effort in a new place without any acknowledgement of the responses to your first, outvoted effort; or any referral to those of us who responded to your first try. (Common courtesy, I have to say.) Ignoring/inexplicably, cursorily demeaning the other editor's efforts. Wow. Put an NPOV on the article if you're really bothered, try to prod more effort, move on, keep an eye on it. Does that help at all or is (speedy, bulldozer) 'Delete' the only answer you'll accept? You're not getting it from me by a long shot yet. What's 'we always use'? Do you and yours have examples of articles you've managed to delete? Or are they just happily gone for good, out of sight? I see your WP:CORPDEPTH. Independence is one criteria (with External links starting to make up that gap) but there are other features of Audience and Depth that are better covered already in the article. Missing -- except maybe implicitly in, say, Audience -- is the Fox News example: If the products are being used it ought to be covered as best it can be, in my opinion. I see the "Advertising, marketing or public relations" paragraph in the 'is not' policy but I don't see this article as being that. It's a private company, five years old or so. It's running hard. Its website tells a lot about it. It motivated an affiliated individual to want to see it in Wiki. The article and editor've been chastised and also cleared of any horrible, permanently disabling wrongdoing associated with those tainted, amateur-mistake beginnings; and it's grown from there. External links show it's not unknown in the world, someone has to do the work to upgrade further and the links give a good place to start as do the upgraded templates now on the Talk page. I hope you can get your head around all that. I'm at a bit of a loss; you seem -- to go back to my beginning here -- to think you can quickly fling lists and numbers and never get into the subject at all; typo after typo doesn't help your presentation or credibility. (I know you've pushed me to lots of sentence fragments, here. Apologies if they bother you as much as typos do bother me.) I'm not questioning your motive; but your tactics and process and objective do sting; and take a lot more time to deal with than you seem to be putting in to proposing deletion (and not bothering to deal with responses). I see you hurting the encyclopedia by taking out a now-3rd-ranked but helpful bit of an article; a bit which is a fine platform for more work as it's warranted; a bit which would leave a definite hole if removed. Enough, probably too much. Keep. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but move to Draft space to remove promotionalism Most of the sources are indeed unusable, but the Aug. 6 Lohr article in the NYT is substantial coverage--I've sometimes been a little skeptical of its BITS section , but this seems like good reporting. The INC. article also, the PR-influenced, isn't too bad. The patent troll material is significant also. (The later article by Lohr defended just above is however only in small part about the company). The inclusion of all the PR does make for a promotional article. The question we now face, is for what does seem to be a significant company, how do we remove the promotionalism ? I think that anyone arguing keep simply on the basis that the promotionalism can be removed is not giving an adequate reason, unless they as a competent editor are actually prepared to remove the promotionalism themselves. If I was willing to do it, I would have !voted keep, and done it, as I 've done for an article day or two ago -- and many times before. Bt since I'm not interested in this one, unless someone else is, the fairest thing to do is to move it to draft space until someone does fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the Draft process mean that the current article is completely gone from the encyclopedia -- for ‘Search’, internal and external, for example; for links to Graphiq from elsewhere in Wiki -- for however long re-drafting may take? The question gets to my ‘adequate reason’ for keeping the article while improvements continue to be made. It seems to me to be an important, small private company. It has a significant predecessor (DoubleClick, sold to Microsoft) and important competitors (IBM and Google were the other two in the Lohr article I read at random from the list, each of the three receiving about 1/4 of the article; with a serious testament to the 'fast-growing start-up' Graphiq in 2013 there). I happened on Graphiq via its MooseRoots.com site through a credit line in Fox News. I wouldn’t want to take Wikipedia out of the loop by removing a substantial four-year-old article even temporarily and possibly indefinitely. Some of the complaint here still goes back to the article’s beginnings which have been considerably -- and to other editors' satisfaction -- addressed years ago. No one else here has addressed the alternative of restoring the NPOV template, less drastic than deleting or moving to Draft mode and a good motivator to steady improvement. Still a Keep. Swliv (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be removed from Google and other external search engines which honor our guidelines about which items to index, but would remain in some external indexes that do not. It would continue to be searchable within Wikipedia--it would show up as being in Draft, and this AfD discussion would also be findable. Even if it were deleted entirely, the afddiscussion would remain findable within WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DGG. (1) Any opinion on WP:NPOV template as a less drastic solution? (2) I like that at least within WP the search would lead to the Draft but feel it would still leave a big gap. In the last 90 days 35 average with a few nice spikes to 60-and-above users have accessed the article daily. As flawed as it is I think those users were helped and not damaged by finding what we currently have. But I've convinced myself. I hereby add: Favor NPOV. It would improve user experience with the warning and encourage users maybe to pitch in and help. (3) We don't seem to be moving toward complete deletion but if it occurred, along with the afd continuing available there's also the ability by an administrator to revive the article (to put into Draft, for instance) upon request so all the work done to date is not lost, am I correct? Thanks again. SwisterTwister Did my response have too much annoyance in it for you to bother to respond (even after your running me around as documented and my other concerns with your approach)? I'm sorry, if so. I didn't even address your opening phrase -- "Clear company-webhosted advertising" -- which, to me, goes to motive for a good number of editors like myself, I think, who've acted in good faith, in line with policies as we understand them and in the interest of the encyclopedia; not to mention the editor who pursued and cleared, to his or her satisfaction, the original unintentional breach of policy. Yes, I still have my displeasure with your approach and tone and I continue to be sorry -- I'm puzzled by what you're trying to accomplish; how you think removal would improve WP; your combination of rigor and quick-to-all-or-nothing-solution. Maybe NPOV will help some, for you too. Maybe 2-1/2-to-1 current vote has you fuming off-page. Anyway, I've reopened an approach to you here because you've, notably, not acknowledged my response to your question in any way. I hope you can find a way through your opinion(s) to try to join in this hopefully collaborative, I'd call it, editorial decision-making process. Thanks. For the record, also: Still a Keep. Cheers all. Swliv (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It is not enough to say that there is somewhere someplace promotionalism...it must be identified so that the problem is actionable.  However, I will say that the first sentence is incomprehensible jargon and the second not much better, and if we have editors paid to work on this article, maybe we can ask them to lower the reading level of the lede.  Even if I don't really know what this company's product is, Reuters and AP have a clear idea, and they are the ones that count.  The heritage from DoubleClick seems to carry a lot of weight.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, you've set an impossible condition: If there are specific promotional elements the article shouldn't be deleted because they can be fixed, and unless there are specific elements it shouldn't be deleted (presumably because we then can't be sure it's promotional. What makes this article appropriate for deletion is the use throughout of inadequate sources accompanied by a pervasive promotional tone--it would have to be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a company one of whose products is advertising.  And DoubleClick is hardly a stranger to advertising as a product.  Removing advertising is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Are we also going to censor the previous name of the company "FindTheBest"?  That name by itself is promotional.  The majority of the article at this point is references.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about for the article? Swliv (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graphiq&oldid=1089530448"