Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrise

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. What is it with articles about companies recently at AfD? In this case, however, there is a relatively substantial consensus that the quality of sourcing is not sufficient to sustain an article.  Sandstein  07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrise

Adrise (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)

Merely Press Release covered by various media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. The sources listed above are not convincing, as they relate to launch publicity and funding news, such as "AdRise Raises $2 Million From Foundation Capital To Put Video (And Ads) On More Connected TVs". This does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH or overcome promotionalism concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROMO is an invalid reason for deletion of this article, because it has no bearing regarding if the article topic is notable or not. WP:PROMO is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed by editing the article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the above sources listed are not convincing. TechCrunch is routine coverage of a funding round: "AdRise Raises $2 Million". Variety is pretty much the same: raised $6 Million; announce a new hire. This does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH, and if the article were kept it would contain two or three sentences, resulting in an WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIRECTORY is an invalid reason for deletion of this article, because a stub article is within policy, and it has no bearing regarding if the article topic is notable or not. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues with WP:NPOV can be fixed with Wikipedia's amazingly effective and community-driven process called editing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and I meant to comment sooner, the Delete votes are genuine and exact with the concerns since everything there is, is simply what the company wants to advertise itself, the above links are also the case, since it actually to specifics about company financials and numbers, something only the company would know and therefore care to mention, especially to interest clients and investors. Note how the current article largely focuses with exactly that, and it's not surprising because such a new company as this would not only have the establishment and substance needed for a convincing article, the history itself shows 2 accounts ever actually solely focused with this, and that emphasizes the PR intentions and actions if that's exactly what happened here; therefore concerns such as these should be taken quite seriously because that shows the planned thoughts of those advertisers, to think they could simply submit an article with information and sources and no one would care to examine it. Note how the WallStreetJournal is only a few mere paragraphs and all of that is simply company-supplied information since it goes to specifics about what the company is and its services, the next one is literally about the company's activities and partnerships for its own business, and it's no larger than a few thinly-sorted paragraphs, the next one is also literally simply advertising the company's services by showing what its plans are and have been, and the final two are literally simply repeating the company's own mindset and words about where its funding is going and how it got there. When a company has to focus that heavily with either mentioning its involvements with other companies or the fact it needs or has so far obtained money, it shows it has not even established itself yet to not have to focus with sole PR. Once again, considering the concerns here with actual convincing sourcing and then the fact this article itself was not only contributed by advertising-only accounts, the intentions and actions are still there, as if to say the company actually wants to keep this or else this would've actually improved, but a company wanting PR this genuinely is never going to because that's not its field of interest. Suggesting in a snide tone that we simply have to fix this to improve it is not in fact a solution if, once again, this is an advertisement from the start, and therefore we should not compromise by satisfying such blatant advertising by literally keeping it, because if this were actually improvable at all, then it could easily simply be restored when we have actual substance, not simply what PR is available or what advertising methods the company is using. As always, we should not accept sourcing alone if it's simply coming from a major news source, because major news sources can, have and still are publishing company PR so we cannot be so damning to literally presume it's 'significant coverage', without fully and actually considering the concerns. Once we become a manipulated PR webhost, we're entirely damned as an encyclopedia that can be taken seriously. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have specific information that would refute that Joe Flint from the Wall Street Journal, Janko Roettgers and Todd Spangler from Variety Magazine, Tom Cheredar from VentureBeat and Ryan Lawler from TechCrunch have supplied significant coverage in reliable sources, please do offer it. I'm not seeing anything of substance in your comments above. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To answer 1Wiki8's specific question above:
    • Joe Flint from the Wall Street Journal. Routine coverage of a startup signing a deal with a customer. Nothing in here that meets the definition of in depth coverage.
    • Janko Roettgers and Todd Spangler from Variety Magazine. The dateline on this is "APRIL 16, 2014 | 09:01AM PT". Surprise, a google search shows a bunch of coverage by many financial media outlets of this exact event, on this very day. Many of them with datelines that agree to the minute with when Variety released the story. That's because they're all just the same warmed-over press release, which was embargoed until that time. So, that doesn't pull any weight.
    • Tom Cheredar from VentureBeat. This one's a joke. At the point this article was written, the company had been in existance for 10 months, had three employees, had launched their first product the day the article was published, and had received a single, undisclosed round of angel funding. It's pretty much inconceivable that a company at that stage has done anything worth noticing, which is pretty good evidence that Venture Beat writeups are meaningless as far as demonstrating notability goes.
    • Ryan Lawler from TechCrunch. Routine announcement (i.e. warmed-over press release) of an early-round startup funding event, in a media outlet which specializes in this type of stuff. Meaningless.
-- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good commentary! Sadly it is based on false assumptions about what legit news coverage is, so it will have to be discounted. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not false assumptions. Just opinions which differ from yours. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure promotionalism about a promotional company. They would be expected to be good at getting press mentions, and they are. As we have seen here at AfD many times, the accumulation of such references is a sure diagnostic of promotional writing. 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstRhas it backwards--if an article is primarily promotional and require major rewriting it should be removed, regardless of notability. The provisions of WP:NOT are fundamental policy, and much more important than whether a subject meets borderline notability, which tend to be quibbles about the interpretation of guidelines. If the firm is important, someone will write a decent article, and the attempt at advertising will not remain in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a Keep and WP:TNT !vote, since you have given no case that the article topic is not notable. The idea to force a restart in order to censor the article history seems unwise, but that is a different issue for a discussion elsewhere, it's not about notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:TNT again. It says the exact opposite of what you think it does. The procedure suggested there is to delete' the article but then write a new one, or at least not to protect it from re-creation; not to keep it with all its preceding junk version and improve it. TNT is a reason to Delete at AfD. Almost all AfD deletions are actually TNT, because very rarely do we block re-creation in a close here. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adrise&oldid=1089512272"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrise, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.