Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10Web

10Web

[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)

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. I hear the concerns, but I’d like to offer a different perspective.

I’ve been part of the Wikimedia movement for a decade, with thousands of contributions across languages. Just like you, I care deeply about Wikipedia’s values and policies, especially NORG policies.

That said, I don’t think it’s fair to label the article as “entirely promotional” just because it describes what the company does. It sticks to factual info (founding, products, notable partnerships) and cites independent sources like TechCrunch, TechRadar, and Business Insider. If there are sections that feel too marketing-like, I’m all for improving them, but deletion seems like an extreme first step.

Happy to collaborate on making the article stronger if that’s the direction we want to go.

Thanks. ShahenWasHere (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I do not think any amount of cleanup could save the page. The Business Insider reference is churnalism (a regurgitated press release and even marked as such), Tech Radar is a blog, and even if Tech Crunch is considered to meet WP:ORGCRIT (I personally like certain TC references depending - but, many editors here do not), that is only one source. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @CNMall41, thanks for your follow-up. I definitely understand the need to be cautious with company pages, and I’m all for making sure the article sticks to Wikipedia’s standards.

That said, I’ve now added four references from published marketing and tech books that mention 10Web in a broader context. I’m also planning to add a link to a U.S. patent registered by the company, which speaks to its original contributions. These aren’t promotional materials; they’re third-party, editorially controlled sources that support notability under WP:ORG.

I completely agree that tone matters, and I’m happy to work on refining it. But I’d encourage us to focus on the actual criteria for notability, significant independent coverage, rather than assuming that a company article is promotional by default. How else would one write a descriptive page on a company with 1.5M+ users without sounding promotional?

If anything feels off in the wording, I’m open to edits or suggestions. But deleting the page outright feels premature given the sourcing now in place.

Thanks again. ShahenWasHere (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. The only thing I have focused on is notability. I am saying that even if promotional tone was cleaned up it would not matter because the topic is not notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]