Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground Sessions

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. I think those advocating Delete put forth a more persuasive argument about the inadequacy of the sources used in the article and those cited here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playground Sessions[edit]

[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 WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP References are routine business news, PR, press-releases scope_creep^Talk 09:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Education, and New York. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm also seeing a couple other sources from USA Today [1] and Polygon [2] alongside what is in the article. I find it hard to believe that several reliable publications are all PR coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the company director and founder in both the references, demonstrating the software in a classic piece of PR. Both of them fail WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? I don't believe the authors are affiliated in any way nor is there any proof that the content was developed by them. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Its classic PR. More so, because its the company founder doing the work, its fails WP:ORGIND. References for company's need to be in-depth, signicant and independent per WP:SIRS, which is part of WP:NCORP. Those two references are not independent. That is the company director holding sessions to promote his business. So they are not references, that satisfy WP:SIRS. That is the core problem with the article. The first references, lists the costs of the services, which means it comes from a press-release or the company website. They are junk references. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP - Quincy Jones and Harry Connick Jr. promoting their product in USA Today 2 interviews that also include a basic product description do not provide WP:ORGIND nor WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability - it is WP:PROMO. Similarly, CEO Chris Vance promoting the product in a brief post on Polygon based on the company's self-description fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, and is churnalism from a Mashable post (also a source in the article) that substantially relies on Vance and a basic description of the product. The article also includes non-RS WP:MEDIUM, primary trademark information, and recycled press releases about the product launch published in multiple outlets: Fast Company, Jet, Hollywood Reporter, TechCrunch, that substantially rely on quotes from Jones and Vance and a basic product description. An online search finds press releases, non-RS review sites, and more promotional content. There appears to be insufficient sources with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I was the one who deprodded this. I didn't feel the sources were bad enough to justify PROD. They are largely written in a style I personally find grating, but USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and CNET are all considered reliable, which tips the balance from "they paid all these places to write about them" to "these places interviewed the obvious sources while writing about them". ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is paid for the promotion is not the only consideration - these sources do not offer significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH that is independent per WP:ORGIND. The WP:NCORP guideline helps us identify content to exclude per the second prong of WP:N, i.e. per WP:NOT policy - in the WP:ORGCRIT section, it states The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. A reliable source is not enough to support notability when it relies on promotional quotes from people connected to the company and basic descriptions of the product. Beccaynr (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the December 27, 2018 CNET source in the article quotes Connick, the product website, a Playground Sessions spokesperson, a Flowkey (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, a Simply Piano (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, and basic descriptions of products and pricing, which lacks independence per WP:ORGIND, because it regurgitates the promotional narrative from related parties, and lacks sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH because it does not provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.

Similarly, the briefer January 21, 2019 USA Today source quotes the product, Connick, prices, and promotes an interview with Connick, and the April 18, 2013 USA Today source is more about Jones generally, not Playground Sessions, while the brief coverage in the April 18, 2013 Hollywood Reporter source is based on quotes from Jones and Vance, as well as basic product information, including pricing, before it moves off-topic to Jones' induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and his birthday. Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. USA Today and the like may be reliable, but the specific articles by those organizations that are being cited here are not independent, per Beccaynr's initial comment. The article's subject has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what the article needs to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. As pointed out above, we require sources which contain in-depth independent content on the company. None of the sources meet the criteria as they rely entirely on information provided by the company or people affiliated with the company (fails ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 12 December 2022 (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.