Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SocialCred: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:44, 14 September 2020

SocialCred

[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)

promotional non-notable app with very little sustained independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is promotional, I urge senior editors to clean up promotional contents in the article just as an Admin has done on the page. There are more sources in two print newspapers and I'm learning how to cite them on the page. Asema1957(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep I am finding SIGCOV of the app, with much non-trivial coverage like this. and this and this. There is not a guideline which calls for "sustained" coverage in relation to a product. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by User:Lightburst 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (with no prejudice against draftification and requiring
Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Meh,
WP:BEFORE shows much more non-trivial independent RS, like Business Day 1, Techeconomy 2, Vanguard 3. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Salting is more than called for here. This article was, beyond a reasonable doubt, the result of
WP:UPE. Your Business Day source is identical to the Neusroom source already in the article here
, even though the two are ostensibly by different, staff writers. Oops, somebody done screwed up at the PR firm!

Moreover, the company in question, Plaqad was already deleted more than once, the creator blocked for socking, see also their effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia.com.ng, and note the not-at-all-surprising overlap in sources at that AfD and here. I've opened an SPI on the current article creator (alleging a link to the original account). This may or may not give anything conclusive, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

In any case, it's fair to conclude that the bulk of the sources provided were paid for, and are thus not independent of the article subject, and thus do nothing to establish notability. Unfortunately, I think you picked the wrong article to try to rescue this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right article-I already did some minor work to the article. You can make a point by calling out press release type sources, but not the independent ones. And pointing to other deleted articles which are not this article is not an impressive tactic. The app gets much coverage in Nigeria and Africa and has understandable PR. This is only a 2 month old app so some regurgitation is understandable. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/08/socialcred-shows-why-micro-influencers-might-be-getting-more-nods-over-mega-influencers/ not count as legitimate coverage? What about the other sources mentioned already? Dream Focus 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. From Vanguard's advertising page:
Sponsored Post
The cost sponsored article is one hundred thousand Naira (N100,000.00) Please note that articles to be published as sponsored post must be submitted for verification and approval before payments are made.
Given the promotional nature of this piece and the host of other promotional stories all appearing, and the history surrounding previous related articles and account, it's pretty safe to say that everything here is the result of paid PR. None of this demonstrates notability. (For reference, that's about 250.33 US dollars). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: the editor is incorrect about most of the sources. The LA Times and NY Times are not the standard for this type ofNigerian app. We have several solid sources: DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late. This is a two month old app. I am unsure why the need for this tendentious editing... contesting every piece of information. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialCred&oldid=978286052"~~

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *'''Question''' Does this https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/08/socialcred-shows-why-micro-influencers-might-be-getting-more-nods-over-mega-influencers/ not count as legitimate coverage? What about the other sources mentioned already? [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 *:No, it doesn't. From Vanguard's advertising page: {{tq2|Sponsored Post<br/>The cost sponsored article is one hundred thousand Naira (N100,000.00) Please note that articles to be published as sponsored post must be submitted for verification and approval before payments are made.}} Given the promotional nature of this piece and the host of other promotional stories all appearing, and the history surrounding previous related articles and account, it's pretty safe to say that everything here is the result of paid PR. None of this demonstrates notability. (For reference, that's about {{To USD|100000|NGA}} US dollars). &ndash;[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Dream Focus}} the editor is incorrect about most of the sources. The LA Times and NY Times are not the standard for this type ofNigerian app. We have several solid sources: DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late. This is a two month old app. I am unsure why the need for this tendentious editing... contesting every piece of information. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)