Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitizenShipper

• I forgot to say that when I started this article with my own judgment that CitizenShipper is the subject of multiple significant articles in independent reliable sources (including Yahoo), it was also obvious that the topic Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is even more notable, as he is connected to a
  few other projects that have lots of coverage and have passed AFDs, and he is cited as a reliable source himself a couple times. There are a couple volunteer COI accounts connected to the nonprofits who are working on some of these articles, but they have passed muster. I thought that CitizenShipper was independently notable enough to start coverage with it as well. But a good method to address the concerns above, rather than for me to debate about them, is just to move to Richard Obousy and trim CitizenShipper to a section of that (yes, TNT could be part of this). Should I begin editing the article to demonstrate what I mean? (I believe that editing directly to address concerns stated above or at my talk is permitted.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• General responses: A book that lists CitizenShipper in a table counts as reliable and I'd say not irrelevant but less significant; the other sources I listed above similarly used editorial judgment and were not "based on PR". If founder statements are unencyclopedic, that has been addressed and I asked DGG a related question. Transportation inefficiency has been copied to the right article; we can consider trimming it here. Zero complaints was stated in Courier's voice and should be considered as having passed editorial judgment, although I trimmed this sentence also. I don't know that organizational recommendations are promotional; they might be unencyclopedic, but they indicate interrelationships and are the sort of things WP routinely collates, so I added a tag there. Calling the Yahoo article dishonest sourcing may be right but if so I've been deceived too; I AGF'd about the link being genuine when it was archived by Escrow and also here and so if I need to learn something about Yahoo reliability I can get schooled. I deleted "Yahoo! News considered". I'd be happy to add criticism, client concerns, private citizens vs. regulation where that can be seen; I had read through everything and didn't see anything about regulatory concerns about private citizens connecting to this company, but maybe they can be put in a
  groupage article. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Your intention seems to be to find a solution acceptable to the Wikipedia community and to your commercial client, rather than to simply re-write your article in a way that ensures it's not so promotional that deletion is a viable option. Trust me, the latter would be far easier. As DDG outlined in his nomination, the issue here is not notability. It might be borderline but both of us have acknowledged that the company is probably notable. The problem here is the article. And please don't think I have anything against COI editors; my talk page is littered with edit requests from COI editors with whom I have established a working relationship. I might leave a note in your talk page about the other stuff because the focus here should be this article. To answer some of your questions - no, I don't think you should create
  WP:TNT is exactly that - to blow it up and start over again because simply editing it here and there won't be enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So we all agree on stub or TNT? I can continue working with you by (more) edits to founding motive, proper links if needed at all, eBay, Mother Earth if it resembles the FAQ (I'll look), methodology, and cost savings. Maybe you could make a bold edit so I know what you're looking for, and I'll respond? Thanks. I must bypass your stated perceptions about my intentions, and real-world relationships, and the point of my edits, and source access. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, the DOT sources were added at the request of a DYK editor, so I can go either way as you compare notes on that question. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think you should avoid DYK for COI articles. There's no specific requirement to do so but (for me) it crosses the line between writing something to inform editors as a volunteer and promoting a company as a corporate client by writing an article and then getting it on the front page. In my experience, DYK volunteers often struggle with COI for that reason and then find themselves giving all sorts of advice. I saw the note on your talk page about trying to find a singularity in terms of quality between COI and non-COI work. That's admirable but I think you still need to make a distinction, yourself, between those two streams of work and DYK should be one of those distinctions. I'd be okay with stubbing the article if it can be done effectively. I don't think any of the edits so far have been substantial enough (in terms of problem-solving) to substantiate that as a viable solution right now. But I'm certainly open to it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've now extensively edited the article, cutting back a whole bunch of irrelevant rubbish including unnecessary multiple references to the company name and website. In an article about a company its okay to refer to "the company". Otherwise it just looks like a clumsy attempt at SEO. I've removed some of the sections including a bit about the company offering insurance but not any more. I think we could still stand to lose the "Reviews" section. Testimonials belong on the company's site and those aren't very good ones anyway. Everybody can see right through them - it's not the publications saying those things, its the company owner who has been quoted by the publication. The fact that it appears in the introduction rather than the body of the interview doesn't suddenly make it an "endorsement". Anyway, I think it's probably at the point where deletion is no longer necessary but I'd appreciate DGG's thoughts (and of course yours Frieda Beamy). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel a little guilty in that my comments drew user:Frieda Beamy here (who I think is trying to do the right thing) for a verbal beating. Though it is this trial by fire that often helps any editor develop. I would be happy to work on this page to bring it into acceptable standards, but only if Frieda is comfortable with it. I imagine a stub might be appropriate here. I think how an idea for a company was conceived is actually a crucial part of an article, but often these stories turn out to be advocacy promoting the concept and its value. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - having had a proper chance to look over the sources again I think it probably gets over the line. Frieda Beamy seems to have happily accepted edits by others and has readily accepted guidance and advice from both DGG and CorporateM in various forums. We can probably build on what we have there given the new-found sense of camaraderie. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on founding stories in general How the idea for an organization was conceived can be relevant comment if it is either based on some evidence other than what the founders said to their press agent, or is widely reported as a matter of history of legend. Otherwise it's a dubious reconstruction or invention or platitude. At it's worst, it amounts to "I think I saw an opportunity to make money" (which is always the case for a commercial company), or "We saw an unmet need in society" for the typical NGO. It's inclusion in an article where there is little other material serves the purpose of providing content when there otherwise would be nothing to report. (I feel similarly about details of funding--funding is a basic part of company history, but the exact details are rarely of general interest, unless the company is famous. Ittoo can often serve the purpose of providing content when there is nothing much else.) Organizations are notable because of what they accomplish. and this is where the emphasis should be. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I continue to think the article isstill too promotional. The founders claim of having no complaints at all is so extraordinary that it cannot be included based on his own word to an interviewer, yet it is still there. The nature of the article remains not 'what the company does" but "why the company is good"--such an article is promotional: it's what the company chooses to say about itself. . Readers want to know what it does, and will decide themselves on its merits, It might be acceptable stubbified, but this has not yet been stubbified. The wording has been improved, but not the basic content or orientation. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In my opinion, this should have been
  spam, per DGG.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the Mother Jones Mother Earth News piece is clearly press-release blather. EEng (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you would not acknowledge Mother Jones Mother Earth News as an RS based on your opinion of one of its articles. And DGG didn't say it should have been deleted, and even if it's spam, that is not a reason to delete. We made good progress so far and have a good agreement that the subject is notable and the issue has moved on to fixing content. I will work with you on content, but the RS say what they say and I wouldn't second-guess their editorial boards. I would like to have time to add some more sources since they're out there but I don't have them assembled right now. Anyone can edit. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I said Mother Jones instead of Mother Earth News. Anyway, assuming MEN is indeed a RS (I don't know) even an RS often publishes puff-pieces that are obviously rehashes of press releases, and this is one. Please point to the single strongest source in the article in terms of depth of coverage and independence, and we'll go from there. (so far I'm not seeing anything with either depth or independence.) EEng (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got it wrong too. Mother Earth isn't cited as often, but almost 200 times here. Why are we suddenly framing the debate on one source? I haven't known you to debate rhetorically and I don't know what good it would do for me to claim I know which is the best source (excluding the self and gov sources).

• Courier Magazine: industry periodical. Masthead.
• BusinessDay stuff.co.nz: an official blog from Fairfax Media.
• Discovery News
  : mainstream tech news source.
• Yahoo!: mainstream news source. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
• CleanTechnica: eco blog; only used for support.
• Mother Earth News: mainstream eco news periodical.
• Malaysia Sun
  (twice): mainstream regional news periodical. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
• Central Lift Maintenance Group: transportation industry blog that reprinted the article also in Malaysia Sun.

I also had the Spanish efficiency text No Somos Hormigas, but that was only a mention in a table so you might not count it toward significance. But each of these made an independent editorial decision to run significant reliable material. Now we don't need to do this dance, where the second player comes back and tells the first why the second thinks each of the above are unreliable. Why don't we skip to the end and decide whether we should stub, seek new sources, userfy, move to Richard Obousy, or work out some other consensus? Frieda Beamy (talk) :50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated references like "possibly a press release, but passed editorial review" show you don't understand the concept of notability at all. See

WP:GNG: ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases...' Point to even one source that doesn't fall afoul of that exclusion. EEng (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

All of them. It's not just a press release if independent reliable sources publish it. In a couple cases there is evidence that the editors took responsibility for text that matches an identifiable press release, but the majority of sources independently decided to run stories about the subject on their own responsibility. It's not our job to decide which (if any) were initiated by the subject calling up the source and which were the other way round. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. When a source runs a press release, they do so in the knowledge that readers will recognize it for what it is and not mistake it for hard reporting. You need to learn to make that distinction yourself. An industry magazine giving courtesy exposure to a CEO's puff quotes isn't independent coverage. EEng (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in footnotes. Arguments about an alleged promotional tone are to be resolved through the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (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.