Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderful Media (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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderful Media[edit]

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

Userfy. Or, alternatively, delete and protect from re-creation.

[Edit: I have now pointed the article creator to WP:OUTLETDIR. This might help discourage the creator from recreating the article here.]

The article still primarily serves to promote the company and its product. The subject is an unusually small company, with only 75 employees. The article was deleted a few weeks ago. (One user made a flawed argument to keep it, but three users made cogent arguments to delete it.) The creator has recreated it.

The company has bought iCircular from the AP. I've removed a citation to an AP story, and a Huffington Post AP story, which therefore presumably fail WP:INDY. I've also removed a citation to Greg Sterling's website "Screenwerk". As well, I've removed some refs which read like press release churnalism: the Mashable[1], internetretailer.com[2], TechCrunch[3], and Publishing Executive[4] refs. There's only one ref left. The article lacks sufficient sourcing.

If we delete the article again, the original creator will probably recreate it and add more churnalistic sources. So, in this case, it should be userfied; the creator may later contact the closing admin and request deuserfication. Or, alternatively, the article may be deleted, but only if it is protected from re-creation.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The deletion has been contested citing the following guidelines:

1. Content is not identical to a previously deleted page, but was completely re-written to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for pages that describe an organization. This was publicly noted when the new page was posted.

2. The new page addresses previous comments, and adds required third party sources to meet the following guideline:

The most reliable method of convincing people that an article should be kept is to provide a list of multiple independent, third-party reliable sources that describe the subject in detail, such as newspaper articles or critical reviews. Sources do not have to be available online or for free, but they must say more than one or two sentences about the company or product, and they must not have been written by your own company.

3. The page does not link to the company directly with the exception of the website (allowed per Wikipedia guidelines).

4. Additional marketing material was added by another party and subsequently deleted.

5. Please provide any additional feedback or direction. This page was written to comply with all Wiki guidelines for formatting and content.

In addition, the new page was constructed within all Wikipedia guidelines for organizations and addressed the previous deletion, citing lack of sources. No direct company sources were present, and there were originally nine reliable, third party independent references cited. Another user has removed them.

AP coverage does not appear to represent a conflict of interest based on Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources.

Additional comments on the talk page state that companies under 350 employees are automatically deleted as a Wikipedia policy. This seems to be in some contradiction to to notability guidelines.

If the article creator is working within Wikipedia guidelines and a page meets community notability and reference requirements, the page (and user) should not be blocked. Would appreciate additional direction to bring this page into alignment. Please do not delete all cited third party references that were previously approved by Wikipedia editors. KF330 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — KF330 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and salt - to start with, I'll try to address some of the concerns raised above. 1. this is not speedy deletion, it's Articles for Deletion so you should probably read up on that before commenting further. Similarity toi previous version is irrelevant. 2. We need reliable independent coverage. For what might be considered "reliable", please see WP:RS. Routine business announcements are rarely considered significant coverage. 3. That's great but it doesn't really impact on anything here. If the tone of the article is promotional, that's a bigger problem. 4. Good, but it doesn't resolve the notability issues. 5. The content and style might adhere to WP:MOS but the subject itself still needs to be notable to be included. That's the issue here. 6? Nobody has been blocked (from what I can tell) but the article has been deleted in the past and you really need to demonstrate why consensus might have changed. Really, you should have gone to WP:DRV before ignoring the community and recreating your article. Stalwart111 02:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Delete - Non-notable, main section reads like a resume, and the cited information all seems to come from the company. Caffeyw (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And salt, to stop the author from creating the page a third time? (I have sent you a {{talkback}} template to point you here.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would point out that a common mistake made by newer editors is to assume that things are 'approved' by Wikipedia editors (or admins). An editor can give an opinion that something looks good, or looks bad, but there is no actual official approval involved. The editor giving the opinion might well be considered wrong by a lot of other editors. As to this case, as it stands, I can see no notability. It's a company, and it does something. (I'm not quite sure what, but that doesn't matter.) The one reference that is currently up that I could consider in the notability proving line is too brief and looks rather as if it's based on company supplied info. The other that could be an RS is a mention in a list of companies obtaining funding. This isn't notable (outside the company itself). The other two are at Crunchbase, which is not regarded as a reliable independent sourc any more than PRWire is. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And salt, to stop the author from creating the page a third time? (I have sent you a {{talkback}} template to point you here.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the article and I had substantial difficulty determining just what the company does. (I'm still not 100% sure.) OSborn ^arf_contribs.

Added new citations and third party sources as suggested. Removed 'advertising company' - this is not accurate and has been removed previously (and cited). Wanderful Media is not an advertising company - but previous overview language was removed. Added company backers as a relevant and indisputable fact (the company is funded and formed by media companies, similar to early cars.com and classifieds.com efforts by the media industry). Open to additional feedback to improve page and entry notability. KF330 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Wanderful Media is an independent Silicon Valley company that owns and operates the Find&Save brand." even mean? Are they just an IP holding company? They 'operate' the brand, but what does that mean? What does the brand represent? What does this company do?? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't really "improve notability" except perhaps by lobbying the New York Times to give the company more coverage. The company is either notable or it isn't. You can improve the way the article establishes the notability of the company by adding available sources. But if independent reliable sources aren't available, then it may well be that the company isn't notable. For the record, the "sources" you added were from a press release and a company blog - neither is likely to be considered a reliable source. Stalwart111 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the notable companies mentioned have put in what must really be peanuts these days in terms of corporate investment into a venture doesn't in any way mean that the venture itself is notable. There are a lot of businesses that don't pass WP:CORP despite being much bigger than this one appears to be. Find&Save seems to be a web-based lister of local 'deals', and I quote: "Our high level goal is to create an immersive and local shopping experience," said Dave Thomsen, Wanderful's executive vice president of product and design." That is from the fiercemobile site - I have removed the advert that seems to attach itself to text copied from there, and am wondering how they do it. (I wonder if he talks like that all the time...) In time, this may become notable. It may be the brand that gets notable before the company, as is often the case. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt. This company has simply not received the necessary independent reliable coverage to pass WP:CORP. And its brand, Find&Save, does not pass WP:GNG based on searching. I did go back and look at some of the previous versions, since there have been significant deletions since the article was created, but the deleted material does not affect notability. (BTW the article really doesn't read like an advertisement; in fact it hardly reads like anything at all.) I did find out one thing: I now know (based on a Google search) what the company does. It reproduces local advertising circulars online; here is the page for my locality [5]. However, it does not appear to have attracted much in the way of independent notice, and without such notice it does not qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I couldn't see it taking off where I live - I and quite a few of my neighbours have notices on our letter boxes telling people not to deliver those circulars. (Doesn't always work - many of the deliverers appear to be foreign. The stuff goes straight into recycling, though.) We definitely wouldn't be accessing this online. The people of the USA may take a friendlier view of advertising. Peridon (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We get a ton of such circulars included with the newspaper, particularly the Sunday paper, as well as in the mail. As you say, they go straight to recycling at my house. This company appears to think people WANT those circulars, but not in a dead-tree version. So far it seems their business model hasn't attracted much attention. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and salt) per Melanie's and Peridon's valid rationales. Just providing multiple sources does not necessarily establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (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.