Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnitesUs

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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UnitesUs

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

Seems to fail the notability guideline at WP:CORP. The spammy corporatese could be eliminated with a rewrite, but sourced to what? Existing sources are not intellectually independent of the subject, but still are trivial and tangential in their coverage. I was unable to find anything better online. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This UnitesUs article I believe does meet the notability guideline in section WP:CORP, specifically the section stating, “The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.” New York Times, Fox News, and The Economist are reliable independent sources. Moreover, found within the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), under the Primary Criteria section, it mentions “If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability.”, which again, the UnitesUs article has adhered to, listing at least 5 sources. Under this section, to make up for “trivial coverage”, the article has to list multiple [2] independent sources which should be cited to establish notability, which in fact the UnitesUs article carries out. Lastly, as for the “spammy corporatese” statement, the UnitesUs article was written in the same manner in which the CareerBuilder AND Yahoo! HotJobs Wikipedia articles were written. TonyAbba (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources plus the same dead link used twice, actually. But 5, 10, or 25 sources would not meet the notability criterion if they were the same quality as the ones currently used in the article. There are two key problems with them is it pertains to assessing notability: they are not independent of the subject due to the financial connection, and they are trivial in nature (all tangentially covering the subject with the same three-sentence press release summary). VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how you interpret the rules of Wikipedia, based on what is stated on Wikipedia’s Notability (organizations and companies) article, this article adheres to what Wikipedia states as acceptable... despite it being “tangential” coverage in your eyes. There are multiple sources listed from reliable independent sources. TonyAbba (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sources are trivial and not independent of the topic. Sources would need to be presented that address both issues to demonstrate notability as discussed at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand that the sources were not published by IBM, which UnitesUs is affiliated with, but by third party, credible sources such as CNBC, New York Times and The Economist. Moreover, the WP:ORGIND article that you reference states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". These sources used in the UnitesUs article are newspaper articles. TonyAbba (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Every source presented either quotes or closely paraphrases the same three sentences from this press release. Pasting in more sources that do the same does nothing to establish notability, because of the lack of both depth and intellectual independence. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Obviously if the subject wasn't notable, no other source would publish the information. Common sense goes a long way. Moreover, the UnitesUs article adheres to the 4 cardinal policies governing the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies are allowed in the main namespace:(Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). TonyAbba (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are clearly incidental mentions, not references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I would consider this almost an A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 25 November 2015 (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.