Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServiceMagic (3rd 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article was blatant advertising, which has been cleaned up, but little remains after removal of puffery. Fails notability criteria because is not subject of multiple, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable contractor referral service. Only one article on this web service, in Rocky Mountain News, and one passing reference in Wall Street Journal article. All that remains after that, by way of sources, is the company's own website and its press releases, and passing references in the media. Artcle has been nominated twice for deletion in the past, and in the intervening years no RS sources have materialized. Previous AfDs influenced by large numbers of ghits, but these seem to be mainly complaint board posts and repetitions of company-generated releases. Article has suffered from mislabeled and mischaracterized sources, such as a press release listed as a "Reuters article" and other sources mistitled and not supporting the text. Apparently the iffy sourcing is a product of overt COI editing, and was tagged for that as recently as last month. A review of the page contribution history shows that at least three SPAs, User:Servicemagic (now blocked), User:Sullivar and User:Spidermidget, have been principal contributors to this article over the past year. One was a vocal opponent of the last AfD. Closing administrator is urged to carefully review the contribution history of editors participating in this AfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not properly completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) sorry for the goof. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and/or advertising. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this article has weaknesses, the company is the dominant player in its industry, advertises widely on radio and TV, and has been covered in construction industry trade press. Disclosure - I am a licensed contractor and have done business with this company. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am willing to change my stance to keep if you can provide multiple, secondary source RS to corroborate with that assertion. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to quickly find a variety of reliable, independent sources about this company (CNET, Washington Post, MSN, MarketWatch, CBS, Direct Magazine, Fox News, and a variety of others. I've seen the company's ads on NBC, NPR, etc, though I'm not sure how to cite these. A quick search also reveals they won Technology Company of the Year (in Colorado). Per the WP:CORP company criteria, there is also a Hoovers profile. As far as I can tell, there are plenty of reliable sources, notability, etc for WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Combined with ScottyBerg's cleanup, this seems like a good candidate to keep. The article probably needs some additional updating though. --Artlovesyou (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing about the company, as differentiated from incidental mentions of the subject in articles on other subjects and company-generated publicity. I looked at the links provided just above, and they read like press releases. "Direct Magazine" seems clearly written by the company. ~~CBS and Marketwatch links are duplicates.~~ Lack of in-depth coverage required by the guidelines. Figureofnine (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how the CBS and Marketwatch links are duplicates? They're different stories written by different people, and about a year apart. Saying something "seems clearly written by the company" isn't proof, though I'm okay with being proven wrong here. The other sources combined with a quick look through the "Find Sources" links provided by Wikipedia (news & books especially) clearly pass the assertions of this AfD - the company is clearly notable and passes numerous criteria in WP:CORP and WP:WEB. I looked at the previous AfD nominations, and this has been debated before and kept. Not sure why the same assertions are being debated again. --Artlovesyou (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)— Artlovesyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - I stand corrected on the duplicate issue, but my concerns remain. The CORP notability guideline requires that subjects of articles be the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources," and the required depth of coverage is not met. I'm not privy to the earlier discussions, but there were similar concerns regarding this article dating back some years, and I don't believe they have been rectified. The nominator raises COI and SPA concerns regarding the article itself and previous discussions. I can't help but notice that you have a total of 14 edits, all but one today. Figureofnine (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are multiple nontrivial secondary sources covering the company. To add to the previous list: Businessweek, New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonmkj (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first comes up blank but seems to be a directory listing, the second is a routine corporate announcement quoted in a Times blog, and the third is an incidental mention. I think what's needed is independent coverage about, not just mentioning, this company. Figureofnine (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article a bit and added some new sources. The comments made above about how the sources "look" like press releases are unfounded. If they cannot be proven to be press releases, then they must be assumed to be genuine, since they are in reliable sources. And since they are non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then the subject is notable and should be kept. Silver seren^C 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your comments about articles that look like press releases. It is the responsibility of editors to ascertain if recycled press releases are being used to support notability claims. The St. Louis Business Journal article [1] that you just added to the article is a rewritten press release, with perhaps one paragraph of background added [2]. You may want to reconsider your utilization of that source for the article, as it does not appear to support the footnoted statement. The remainder of the sources cited above by SPAs are clearly trivial coverage. WP:CORP defines trivial coverage as including "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," and "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business." That would exclude all of the mentions in the major media. The guideline further says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." That would exclude Appliance News, Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post (the company is in Colorado) and Direct. I don't see what's left except the website itself. Figureofnine (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, you have yet to show how the St. Louis Business Journal is a "rewritten press release". What press release is it rewritten from? How do you know it is rewritten? If we're going to go down the route you're saying, then I can make the statement that any newspaper article about a company is a press release. Regardless, I added two more, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Silver seren^C 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source press release is linked in my comment. Figureofnine (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But that doesn't change the new sources I found. Silver seren^C 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the substantial coverage in reliable sources. This article from the Washington Post and this article from The New York Times provide significant coverage of ServiceBack, thereby establishing notability. Silverseren, thank you for your marvelous work on the article. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2010 (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.