Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signal Alliance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Hard to dig through this, but in the end I don't think there's any agreement over whether the subject is notable or not. Promotional concerns can be fixed through editing, at which point it may be AfD'd again if there's nothing left. ansh666 09:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Alliance

[edit]
Signal Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on non notable company, with exceedingly minor claims, backed up by references which are either notices or PR. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually DGG I think you have high bar for organizations.These organizations from developing nations can not have similar coverage like any startup might get in the US or Europe. Moreover this company is two times winner of competitive Microsoft Certified Partner award, apart from the Cisco award and other recognitions which are well reported in notable and reputable Nigerian papers [1], [2] and [3] all these satisfy many points of WP:CORP. Second WP:CORP and WP:GNG require independent or reliable sources and this article met this criteria: for the 9 sources used only 2 didn't have Wikipedia article, the rest are reputable papers and their reportages cannot be dismissed as a PR by a wave of hand..  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct that I have a high bar for organizations. They're almost always a problem with promotionalism , most of the time with COI, and they have become the major contributor to our paid editor problem which focusses on those with borderline or nonexistent notability . That's not a specific reason for deleting this specific article unless it itself has these problems, but it is a reason for having a high bar generally. (I will probably be making specific proposal to formally increase the bar for at least recently formed commercial organizations as an explicit guideline.). DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, the criteria for establishing notability is slightly different than the criteria for "good sources" which is what you have quoted above. For example, a company might issue a Press Release to announce a new product. That Press Release might be published, verbatim, by an establishing news publication - thereby meeting the definition of a reliable source. Information from this reliable source may also be included in the article. For example, the Press Release might announce that the volume of new product being manufactured broke a national record - this sort of information might be allowable in the article. But, for the purposes of establishing notability, this article is not acceptable since all of the information was provided/produced by the company (fails WP:ORGIND). In order to meet the criteria for notability, a topic must have two articles that are "intellectually independent". Articles that simply reproduce company-produced/provided information are not intellectually independent. All articles that rely extensively on information published/provided by the company or rely extensively on interviews and/or quotations from company sources *without providing additional independent analysis or commentary* fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references listed in the article fail as follows:
Hopefully you can now understand better that the criteria for establishing notability for companies and corporations requires intellectually independent and in-depth articles on the company. Just getting a company's press releases published is not sufficient. Take a read of WP:NCORP for further information. -- HighKing++ 18:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First you now agree the sources are independent you now changed from questioning the sources to questioning the content by dissing it as press release. WP:CORP requires "secondary source" of which all these notable media houses are, (the website o the company) is not even used to support even one claim. Second, by publishing these material these independent sources means they found the news "newsworthy" and "notable" to be published in their medium after rigorous editorial consideration. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be missing the point. I stated that the sources were not "intellectually independent". I have not changed from questioning the sources to questioning the content, my position is consistent at this AfD and at many others. You asked what was meant by "intellectually independent" and I provided a comprehensive response and an easy-to-understand example. WP:CORP contains both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which also provides direction on interpretation. You are welcome to have a different interpretation but 1) you should note that your interpretation is not one that is shared by the majority of experienced editors that participate at Afd and 2) don't shoot the messenger.-- HighKing++ 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Independent media houses published things after passing through editorial stages, and only newsworthy do passed. Newsworthy subsequently means it is of public interest and notable. Who are '"experienced editors"?! Where are they based? I am talking of what is defined as independent/secondary sources per guideline and you are quoting "experienced editors" view. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out to you, the criteria for establishing notability is different to the criteria for verifying facts. Look back at the example I used first regarding the New York Times (a reliable third party secondary source that meets WP:GS) publishing a press release or company announcement. This example would fail the criteria for establishing notability since the published content is considered a PRIMARY source especially if the published article has no independent commentary, analysis or opinion. Read WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. I've tried to assist you in understanding the core issue. Its up to you whether you want to continue arguing and/or trying to re-interpret policies and guidelines that editors (who participate at AfD on a daily basis - i.e. experienced) understand. Also, feel free to disagree and push your own interpretation - just don't be surprised if other editors disagree. -- HighKing++ 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a completely different company, it's part of this one. It's an investment arm. See here. If it isn't already covered here it should be. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter - even if it is a subsidiary, it is a completely separate company doing different things. Notability isn't inherited. And apologies for repeating, the references you have found are all inadmissible for the purposes of establishing notability since they are company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A subsidiary is not a separate company. That article absolutely establishes notability as it is a bylined news article. Please don't insist on making false statements and misrepresentations. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're wrong. From the subsidiary article: Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation, and liability. A tag of "subsidiary" establishes the legal owner, nothing more. I've already commented on the article, it is up to you to read the policies and guidelines I've linked to setting out the criteria for acceptable references to assist in establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 15:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we do treat subsidiaries (interpreted broadly, not in a legally restrictive manner), including associated organizations, as part of the main article in most cases, unless ithe subsidiary has its own specific notability in ints own right, and is sufficiently important that it can be best treated separately. (WP guidelines and interpretations are a world of their own and the terms used do not necessarily correspond with the meaning anywhere else; and the statements in WP articles are not Reliable Sources for anything, not even for the rules we use in distinguishing in our guidelines--their separate domains of thought. What we say in articles must have sources; our interpretation need only have consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional sources; partnership with Oyo government [4], [5], another from Thisday newspaper, [6], another content [7], and again reporting their extensive research [8]. From different source; [9]. From Daily Trust newspaper [10]. From The Guardian newspaper [11]. In addition, [12], [13], [14]. All this while the article is already referenced and no claim is left unverifiable or tagged unsourced. Yes, indeed some sources are not indepth coverage (like any other article), but more are not, and they outnumbered the former. In addition, there is difference between having extensive coverage in obscure or less known sources (which is hard to determine their reliability) to having coverage in reputable and notable national papers. 90% of the sources in the article (and 9 out of 11, I give in this comment) are from well-known national newspaper with verifiable history of fact-checking and editorial independence. The remaining 4, are well established tech websites also, they are just not newspapers. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment *None* of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either produced by the company, based on company announcements and Press Releases, or produced by affiliated companies or collaborators. None are intellectually independent and they all fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. While Ammarpad has disagreed with just about everything that has been said to him to date, his focus on WP:RS fails to take into account WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH and to date, has failed to address any concerns with reference to these guidelines and fails to understand why PR and company announcements - even if published in reliable secondary sources - can fail other criteria. -- HighKing++ 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's because what you are saying is empty and vague dismissal. You yet again agree I provided more reliable sources and even think (I focus much on it?!), but your canned, six words response came again: "none – of –those reference– meet – criteria". Writing these six words is among the easiest work on Earth, I know and everybody can move to any AfD and simply copy/paste them and say all the references don't meet criteria. So why should I focus on such? They don't bother me in the least. I already did the more important, the visible and substantive argument. Also since you asked why I bother more on WP:RS I think I should explain that now: I focus on RS because it's bedrock of Wikipedia quality and it supersedes both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also WP:CORPDEPTH and like WP:N, they are very subjective. If I provided 100 sources you will still cannedly, by typing few words, say they "don't meet A, they don't meet B.". Likewise if I provided 50, even If I provide 500 (by your style here) It is clear you'll respond cannedly. And proof of this can be seen right in this AfD not somewhere far. But, by focusing on providing multiple sources (from established papers, with editorial independence, wiki article) does surely show they can't all be serially manipulated by the same company over a long period of time and subsequently reinforces meeting WP:CORP of the firm –Ammarpad (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are the references intellectually independent? Do the references rely extensively on company-produced material or announcements or interviews/quotations? Do the references have any independent analysis or opinion? If you can't base your rebuttals on these points, then you're picking on the messenger and not focused on the guidelines. You're trying to have an argument about WP:RS and getting angry that everybody is agreeing that the sources are RS. -- HighKing++ 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spamming, enough said. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An interesting AFD discussion by Ammarpad and High King, that have definitely improved my understanding on how WP covers notability of organizations. As someone who is familiar with the way local media houses cover significant companies, I am leaning towards the narrative of Ammarpad, from the references provided. But I have a question for HK, please will you be kind enough to give me an example of an article from a media press (A Nigerian one preferably) that you consider "intellectually independent reference"? This is just for me to observe the differences between it and what we have here. Darreg (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't write the policies and guidelines but they're very simple to interpret. If I could find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, I would already have linked to it here but unfortunately, not one of the articles (Nigerian press or otherwise) I've read meets the criteria for establishing notability - they have all been based on Press Releases/announcements/interviews/alliances/partner announcements/etc. Notably, not one of the Keep !voters has disagreed with my analysis of any of the references. Can you point to a reference that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability and meets WP:ORGIND? You say that you are familiar with the way local media houses cover significant companies - but you cannot point to a reference that is intellectually independent??? We have policies and guidelines for a reason and the onus is on the editors here to understand those policies and guidelines and to interpret them without bias or favour. It is notable that you say you are leaning towards the responses of Ammarpad - yet Ammarpad did not understand that articles must be intellectually independent in order to be considered to meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing++ 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean for this article, I meant any Nigerian intellectual independent reference to better my understanding in future AFDs as it might come in handy in the future. I leaned towards Ammarpad because from my understanding the references he provided were sufficient enough to show coverage in reliable sources. Non notable Nigerian companies, don't usaully get this type of coverage.Darreg (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the claims to notability are not good enough and I am concerned about the verifiability of the claims. The analysis by HighKing is convincing and the quality of the sources do not hold up. Personally for me, I am often willing to consider organisations from developing countries if there are any verifiable claims that it is a major player and it impacts a large number of people. However, this doesn't hold up in this case. I see several problems with the claims which makes me a bit sceptical
  1. Failure of WP:V The claim of Microsoft Enterprise Partner of the Year 2009 in the article doesn't hold up. The actual source by Microsoft doesn't mention the company at all.
  2. The partner of the year is an non-notable award given among the companies who have chosen to partner with Microsoft by paying for the service. It is not a significant industry awards but rather an award from a small pool. There are overall winners (world) and there are also winners from each country. The country winners should be taken with a pinch of salt as the companies are not competing with many others.
  3. Failure of WP:V. There is no mention of claimed Cisco Global Winner Circle Corner 2016 in the cisco website. Despite the claim from secondary sources, there is absolutely nothing on the cisco official website. Neither does this seem to be a major award.
  4. The company is an ordinary services company with 51-200 employees it seems. A major recruiter might still be notable, but I don't see much here
  5. The company has no prominent product or notable for any other contribution either (that could offset the small employee)
  6. Basically it is a run of the mill company which has partnered with Microsoft / Cisco (by paying for the certification programme). There are hundreds of such companies in India and other countries. There is no particular claim of significance about the company.
A blind look at the sources is not enough and I think HighKing did a good job of pointing out the problems with the sources. Many of these secondary sources making claims about Microsoft/Cisco cannot be backed up by an authoritative primary source (Misrosoft/Cisco website). I tried to see if there is any claim of significance which would potentially indicate notability based on company size and profile, but I don't see any either.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC) - Note: Updated slightly and added links for support.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamLinker. Although, I intended not reply to this !vote because of its WP:DLC-like nature. I am replying him in good faith now. Point no 3. Cisco website: Their website is primary source and Wikipedia requires secondary. There are many independent sources that reported this fact, but I will be given only one here (because they are already on this page) link the source is The Punch, 40+ years old independent paper.

  • Point number 2. I agree it's not really big award but winning it two times says something, and winning other awards speaks volume. Plus guideline WP:GNG doesn't require any "award",, what it requires is multiple independent sources. And I believe any independent observer will agree I've already shown this firm has the guideline-based minimum sources. I cannot satisfy personal criteria of people; however.
  • Points number 4, 5 and 6– are all personal thought and subjective opinion. No policy/or guideline-based rationale. You've full right of personal opinion
  • Point number 1, shows you clearly didn't really read the article but eager to vote. If you did, you'll know the exact years of their two awards. I don't know where you got your 2009 from. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed the indentation above [ edit:somebody needs to read WP:INDENT ] and if we're going to go down the route of commenting on individual editors, it should be also pointed out that nearly all of the Keep !voters here have connections to Nigeria (this being a Nigerian company) and none have provided any argument *based on policy or guidelines* on why or how the references provided meet the criteria for establishing notability. Hopefully the closing admin will provide due consideration to any !voting, partisan or otherwise, that fails to provide reasoning for their !vote. -- HighKing++ 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the third time you're switching your argument. After I disprove the other. You now no longer have anything to say except you are concerned with the vote. I agree keep per is very weak and it should be discounted. But I have already shown the company received "significant coverage" from "multiple independent" sources as required by guideline WP:GNG. I have shown the sources are WP:RS (you even complained I focus much on RS!). I have shown that all content of the article meet WP:V. And your only repeadtly canned argument is subjective failed CORP, failed ORGIND and asterisked "none". You're already shown by The Bushranger in this AfD why such argument is very weak, very subjective and not policy-based. Since these multiple RS reports about them, it means they found something worthy to be covered about them. That's why I never try to satisfy you in that regard because I can't satisfy peronal subjectivity. Even if I provide 100 sources you'll still say they failed this and this. Thats is why I focused on WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS and believe I have established them, so as per as this discussion is not vote, I don't need " keep per", (your new fear) –Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UT)
  • Thank you for this. Now I am vandal and and Troll (as your linked essay show) because I revealed facts you don't like. Thanks once again, but sorry, me I don't abuse people via linking them to essays explicitly meant for vandals and trolls. I have great respect for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of WP:V and problems with claims I very pointedly showed above that claims by several of the sources involving Microsoft and Cisco cannot be verified. What matters is the quality of sources, not "x (reliable) sources are present". Many newspapers often print reports based on press releases by the company, without independently verifying. In this case, there are multiple problem with the sources which I see here
  1. Unverifiable claim Claim about 2009 Microsoft Enterprise partner of the year cannot be verified. (Contrary to Ammarpad's bad faith accusation above that I "clearly didn't really read the article but eager to vote. If you did, you'll know the exact years of their two awards. I don't know where you got your 2009 from" this fact is mentioned in the article and reported in this Vanguard reference. Looks like Ammarpad didn't read the article properly, eh? ;) The Vanguard reference is based on a press release statement by Signal Alliance, not Microsoft. The information cannot be found in the official Microsoft website. Newspapers routinely report based on press releases and it is up to us to verify the quality of the source.
  2. Unverifiable claim and sources suspiciously reprinting the same content I searched for "Cisco Global Winner Circle Corner" and found exactly 2 pages of google search results (all Nigerian media). What was more amazing was that if you actually compare the content in the various sources [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], the language is very similar (if not outright same). It is very surprising that a bunch of Nigerian sources reported it and yet there is absolutely no mention of the award on the CISCO website at all? (Or even any European/American media?) Based on the language and similar content this seems to be news recycled from a press release, possibly released by the company. This points to multiple problems of WP:ORGIND and WP:V. It is hard to even determine whether this award exists or not.
  3. Reliable sources reprinting press releases or WP:SPIP What seems to be the problem here is that generally reliable newspapers/technology blogs seem to be reprinting press releases. As it says in WP:SPIP, Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. What we need to look out for is whether people independently of the company have decided to write about it and that too non-trivial works that focus on the company. That is precisely what is missing here. There are many technology companies and they usually receive coverage (beyond routine announcements of partnerships/certification) if they have created any notable IP or if they are a large company affecting the lives/employing many people. That is not the case here. It is a small company whose coverage is limited to routine certifications which are paid for or routine announcements by the company itself
Notability is not as straightforward as "we have x reliable sources and therefore it is notable". It is much more nuanced.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all your genuine concerns already, but the subjective once are beyond my ability. I can't satisfy that. And this place has already become wall of text. I can't be repeating one thing over and over again. If the article resulted in keep you can tag anything you've concern with. If it results otherwise, that's it. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment After this insulting remark of HighKing, linking me to essay meant for unrepentent Vandals and Trolls; they seems to have taken it to another height. They just AfDed six Nigerian companies [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47] in rapid succession so as to take WP:REVENGE and make point. (Or perhaps to annoy me). I actually don't know. I don't worry in the least whether they all got deleted, I created none, but such sweeping decision after you lose your temper in one discussion is not good wiki behavior.Ammarpad (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Signal_Alliance&oldid=1143883802"