Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeopleSmart

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleSmart

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

Non-notable website. PROD declined because NYT article provides notability. The NYT is a blog article in which the website is noted as going live tomorrow. Other references provided are all the same PR announcement as the NYT blog piece with minor changes. Caffeyw (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD is fundamentally flawed on so many levels I don't know where to begin. First of all this easily passes WP:GNG per in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources such as the New York Times, TechCrunch and Wall Street Journal that are already in the article. The nom is basing this AfD on their belief the NYT piece is a "blog" and then the nom later contradicts himself by saying the NYT piece is a "PR announcement." Even if the NYT piece had the affectation of the word "blog", it's still a reliable source per WP:NEWSBLOG as it's published by a professional reporter in a reliable source, not some kid's LiveJournal blog. The nom needs to become familiar with what a "reliable source" is before making these AfD's. The nom then claims that NYT reporter Clair Cain Miller is actually writing a public relations piece on behalf of PeopleSmart. Does the nom have any evidence of this or is it just original research slander? By extension the nom claims reporters Leena Rao of TechCrunch and Tomio Geron of the Wall Street Journal of participating in the "PR". Again, the nom provides zero evidence of this slander on those reporters. The admin was correct to decline the nom's PROD. This is part of a recent spate of inherently flawed AfDs by this nom. Maybe a RfC might be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm skeptical that this article can grow beyond stub-class, but it seems to satisfy the bare minimums for WP:CORP. From my research on Google, there hasn't been significant, ongoing coverage, but the funding got several articles. Although I dislike relying exclusively on newsblogs for notability, they are a legitimate source and don't seem to be opinion pieces or overly promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage showing notability and this being an appropriate topic, even were it to remain a stub article. This article is only days old. I hope the nominator might read and show an understanding of WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:WIP before nominating new articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT plus the WSJ are sufficient sources to keep any article. The NYT blogs of this sort are what would in the print days have been called "columns," sections written regularly by a particular journalist. They are to some extent expected to be a expression of that journalist's opinion, but they're under editorial control. The reliability depends on the extent of this control & the reputation of the columnist.-- the NYT columns have always been noted for reliability and competence; the WSJ similarly, at least for matters within their basic scope rather than on politics. The best known example of a paper where the columnists/bloggers are not necessarily reliable is The Huffington Post, which we use much more carefully on controversial subjects, especially BLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (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.