Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetReputation

NetReputation

[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)

Non-notable reputation management company. Fails WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR spam sites, nothing for notability. The fact that many editors are involved and can only produce such low quality sources, is further proof how non-notable this is. I'm not staying tuned. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Agree, PR page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see: WP:NOTNEWS. Update: “Tampa Bay Times”, a city newspaper, does not change my opinion. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, Kierzek Oaktree b, I suggest you take a look twice. It's a fully good-balance article. due to former suggestions I made more positive article, than it was at start, cause formerly article was based only on company criticism around Leo Molloy's case. In order to evade only criticism I found some positive & neutral recognition sources and added them. If sources not good - delete them! GL HF Paranoya23 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek:
The Tampa Bay Times is the primary major newspaper for the Tampa Bay area (population 3+ million). It's won numerous Pulitzer Prizes. It created PolitiFact.com.

WP:NCORP requires reliable sources and discusses them in detail. There is no distinction made as to size of the publication. Our Reliable sources guideline and Verifiability policy do not require this, with.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, can somebody point me to an applicable Tampa Bay Times (TBT) article that works for WP:NCORP? The only TBT article I found just gave this company a paragraph in a much longer article. If that's all the local newspaper has given them, that's telling.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability passed by Tampa Bay News and NZ-based mass media. This page is stub, subject known as a censorship organisation. Stay, cause many editors was involved. Stay tuned in further developing. Except weak refernces the page has two good-reliable sources according to WP:ORGCRIT. — Note to closing admin: Paranoya23 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. Paranoya23 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The section “Operations” part sounds promotional, but the rest can be keep. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Leo Molloy incident to online reputation management, a section of reputation management which could itself be split off to a separate article. Article creator has done a good job finding sources about ORM in general, but most of them don't mention this company, so I've merged most of that to online reputation management. That addresses User:Kaseng55's comment about the Operations section, but what remains is routine business coverage, press releases, and one interesting incident about a NZ businessman threatening to sue them. No prejudice against recreating the article in a few years, if they do start to get WP:SIGCOV with WP:CORPDEPTH in WP:RS. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to online reputation management is not looking only good one solution because ORM will be overloaded with content size. If we put every censorship case in ORM, then it will be really overload. On my opinion, every "Streisand effect" case should has their separate placement on the Wikipedia. If u wanna connect this case to ORM - add a category. And I might be frustrated to lost the page on which I spent a lot of time. Boring company, but may on florida size they have some fame. Btw, lets keep that and leave the chance to extend content in further cases such as Molloy's. Thx Paranoya23 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not proposing to merge every controversial ORM company to ORM. I'm only saying that the single recent ORM controversy of this company doesn't warrant it having a separate article. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to closing admin someone please, appreciate. Paranoya23 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious about a lot of this and how it was created. They're not notable. Please removed from Wikipedia. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a large number WP:SIRS sources on this subject. I'm concerned a merge might be UNDUE after reading the proposed target. —siro χ o 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks eligible on WP:SIRS with 2 qualifying sources. Stub-class only, haven't chances to be upper class now. Seriy333 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one good, solid ref in the Business Observer, a Florida business publication. Other than that I found a zillion low-quality promotional articles planted by NetReputation. There very well could be something else in all the search engine hits but I stopped after 5 pages of unusable results.

This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I still vote for Keep, cause this page looks similar to my article destinus, where fine explains about industry operations. My opinion: notability here on local-fame & Molloy's scandal, not on the money only. Enough for stub-class. Seriy333 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business Observer consist information about over $10 million revenue, no? Tired to check that. Seriy333 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought this would meet notability guidelines but most of the best sources talk about reputation management. Outside of press releases, we're left with the Tampa Bay list of local businesses, the Leo Molloy article, the IBT listicle and the Florida Business Observer which don't add up to WP:NCORPimo. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on Business Observer and Mirror Review. Bunch of service review sites have also written about them, such as Quick Sprout, Top Work Places. They also have a profile on Inc, which is reserved for Inc5000 honorees. Royal88888 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist. As an aside, I've never seen service review sites considered a RS as far Wikipedia standards go as they are user-generated content that rarely receive any editorial oversight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included the review sites in my response because they appear to be independent and not based on user-generated content. These sites seem to have conducted thorough and independent reviews of companies. According to WP:GNGSC, reliable, independent, and secondary sources are required, and these review sites seem to fulfill these criteria. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, such as proof of user-generated reviews, it is reasonable to consider these review sites as suitable sources for establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

According to this discussion, we have No Consensus decision currently. Seriy333 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A prematurely closed AfD ends up going to Deletion review, in theory a dispassionate discussion of the AfD's closure. In practice, it's often anything but a dispassionate discussion. That sort of drama wastes a lot of community time. Admins will relist to avoid such an outcome if possible.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, I don't have a good feeling about your mirrorreview.com ref; that page looks like a pay-to-play ref. The description on the Inc pages was written by NetReputation: "We fix negative Google search results. We have created exclusive partnerships…" The 2 review sites you referenced don't remotely meet our reliable sources requirement.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we would not know that for sure. You have no evidence as such and I didnt see that site listed on WP:RSP, so that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. You also said "This is a little company -- I saw somewhere that their revenues were well under $10 million." this kind of argument has no bearing on whether they would be notable or not. On the other hand Business Observer seems to be an excellent source and that alone would be enough for notability. Regarding the review sites, see my response further up. Royal88888 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, I concur about the Business Observer as a reliable source as I noted earlier.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]