Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esendex

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esendex

[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)

Sources are all press releases, trade magazines or the company itself. The one article from the nottinghampost is a dead link, and archive.org doesn't seem to have a copy. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Greatplacestowork is an award pretty much any company can win, as long as they pay $995. [1] Vexations (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few articles from usually reliable sources like the BBC, but they seem to contain interviews. So those are off. Other then that, there doesn't seem to be much else out there. Plus, the article seems like an advert anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Adamant1: just because a source is an interview does not mean it isn't reliable and can't be used. This page is a perfectly reliable source for Wikipedia purposes (though it and the related video seem to be the only ones of that nature). Bookscale (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Bookscale, I agree that https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41666820 is usable as a source. It has some quotes, but it isn't just the the CEO talking about the company, and it describes what the company does comprehensively. If we had a few more of these, the article would meet the requirements of WP:NCORP Vexations (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: I was under the impression that articles containing interviews where not considered neutral because the person being interviewed isn't. To me it's a balance I guess. If you take out the interview part of the BBC article the rest pretty routine. They have 200 employees, send out two billion text messages per year on behalf of 30,000 businesses, and make £23m a year etc etc. There's nothing unique or notable about any of that. It's essentially a company press release about their performance masquerading as an article. Maybe if there was an article with a one paragraph interview and then an in-depth analyzes of some notable thing about the company, instead of just surface facts, I'd give that a pass. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: there is nothing in WP:RS at all to exclude interviews, you can't read something into a Wikipedia policy that isn't there. The article is certainly not "routine". However, as I have said above, the BBC one seems to be the only article establishing notability, and given coverage is not widespread this one doesn't seem to meet GNG so we are in agreement there. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say WP:RS says to exclude interviews? I said they aren't considered neutral and so care should be taken when using them. Especially with interviews of CEOs. But I make exceptions sometimes. I just don't think it's worth taking one in this case. There is Wikipedia:Interviews though. "Interviews may be published in reliable publications, but that does not make primary source material contained in them acceptable to cite claims for which Wikipedia requires secondary sources." So, I'm not really sure when an interview would be good to use. Especially for company articles. As CEO's are only going to say good things about their company and rarely do interviews unless the journalist agrees to write about them or the company in a good light. I'm fine with using interviews for straight facts, but those can usually be gotten in much better places though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: - you said There are a few articles from usually reliable sources like the BBC, but they seem to contain interviews. So those are off. Which implies you are excluding sources (and making up reasons for deletion) on the basis of Wikipedia policy that doesn't exist. The interviews pages is an essay that someone has written, not a compulsory policy like WP:RS. Bookscale (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After which when you asked I explicitly said that I might have made an exception with the BBC article despite the interview if it also had none superficial information. Maybe I didn't so in the my original delete comment, but last time I checked this doesn't have to be a complete dump of every damn thought in a persons head about it. Like I said, interview's are for superficial information and care should be taken when using them. I've said that since the beginning. That's also exactly what Wikipedia says. In no way is that "making up reasons for deletion" or anything else your trying to read into it. Deciding the reliability of every source is a balance of weighing different things. In this case I don't feel the sources with the interviews work. In others, maybe they would. Get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote doesn't have to be a complete record of everything a person thinks, but if you're going to argue for deletion it has to be justified. And in this case your first comment was very poorly thought out. Bookscale (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was poorly thought out. To give you the benefit of the doubt though, I'll say it was poorly typed out. How about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of sources to show it exists, but they are routine commercial / marketing in nature, and mostly not sufficiently independent. Aoziwe (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cookie cutter-style promotional article on a firm which doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons previously stated. Dorama285 21:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A ProQuest database search of all Aust and NZ newspapers did not find a single reference (whether WP:IRS or not) in any article. Of course that's only Aust and NZ, but does suggest the company is not particularly notable in the antipodes. Cabrils (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking third party in depth sources. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2020 (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.