Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ValueWalk

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ValueWalk[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Mentions and primary sources don't make notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the subject lacks in-depth coverage, it it referenced innumerably in reliable sources and is used as an RS throughout Wikipedia to verify content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the site is a reliable source or not isn't a notability criteria. My local tax collector's office is a reliable source for things like laws, classes of licenses or other things, but that doesn't make them notable. Similarly, I've reviewed some of those uses and they're questionable and some may need removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we've determined that "innumerably" is pretty much hyperbole. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meat, you don't seem to understand WP's policy on Reliable Sources and GNG. Please provide an example of WP content for which your tax collector has created a reliable source per WP:GNG. (In her official capacity, not like if she moonlights as an investigative reporter for the Wall St. Journal.) SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tax collector example was mine. As a government agency, they're usually a secondary source, but still a reliable one. Being a reliable source, however, doesn't make a source notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misreading that. I think the tax collector as far as I can tell would be a primary source, but as long as this is not being used to support keeping this article, I don't think it matters here. Do you have a !vote for keep or delete? SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is tough to find third-party sources through a Google search on ValueWalk avoiding articles published by them because it is itself a news outlet. Any ideas on how to narrow down a search to avoid results listing their published articles? Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman. The NY Times is a news outlet, yet I can find coverage of it. Besides, calling it a news outlet is a bit of a stretch. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, you can't compare ValueWalk to the New York Times. You know where I'm getting at. Meatsgains (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing the two, because they're not comparable. I'm disproving the notion that a news outlet won't have coverage. And again, I question even calling them a news outlet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've not been able to find any sources that point to WP:CORPDEPTH, just a couple of passing mentions. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no indication of notability or editorial mention by independent RS. Looks like it was written solely to promote the company and republish content from its own website. Let's hope I'm proved wrong in the next 2 weeks and dozens of global mainstream media references start popping up. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more Bloomberg articles referencing ValueWalk but nothing too detailed: [1]. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg calls it a "snapshot" and it wasn't a "few more", it was a single Bloomberg source, unnecessarily cited twice. The "article" is literally a short paragraph. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains. I'm not clear as to why this article was created? Any color you care to give us? SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link I included above lists articles by Bloomberg, as I already stated, referencing ValueWalk: "...according to ValueWalk" [2][3]. It also describes it as "... a finance website"[4] and notes that it has been the first to report on many events [5][6][7]. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep searching for mentions of the site and I'm not sure why. Notability requires "significant coverage". A mention of the site in an article about something totally different is not significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I specifically said, "A few more Bloomberg articles referencing ValueWalk but nothing too detailed". Meatsgains (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't help establish notability, "You're diluting the discussion and getting off topic". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I have used ValueWalk as a reliable source several times, thus being notable enough for a page. Care to give your reason for asking? Meatsgains (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not a "reliable source" for anything. 2. Because your pattern of editing suggests you may have some personal or financial relationship with various companies on which you've created very flimsy articles laden with promotional content. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your accusations elsewhere, this is not the place. You're diluting the discussion and getting off topic. Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, (I assume you're not a dudette) you are the one who raised the question on this page. And note that I made no accusation, I made an observation. One that I'm sure anyone would make if they examined your editing on various articles. Chill. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a barebones corporate blurb and A7 material. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the comments defending this article are not substantiating themselves with substance nor acknowledging WP:NOT which applies, this is simply advertising and it's clear. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 6 December 2016 (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.