Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movebubble

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. There are good arguments made on both sides for the type of article that is often quite difficult to deal with; for this reason I cannot find a consensus to delete even though numerically there are slightly more comments for that outcome. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Movebubble

Movebubble (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)

There are several concerns here such as 1 is that this was clearly a paid article considering the history which only contained 2 SPAs in the entire history, and then the entire article simply focused with what there is to advertise about the company, the listed sources are still in fact trivial and unconvincing, since they also simply consist of the company's own information, such as the ThisisMoney which contains company-supplied information, from start to finish, from A to Z, since a large amount of, first of all, is interviewed information and then the other part is simply what the company business wants to say, such as what the company's own suggestions are about business; now, we could say the company was "featured", "honored", etc. having their information included, but this in fact can also suggest churnalism and-or paid PR, and then the other links I had found in my own searches, such as the TechCrunch, which is PR from start to finish since it largely only focuses with what the company would say about, and it's clear from the article style, since it's not something a journalist or news source would actually publish since it's so flashy.

Now, I'll note that I executed several searches before this, and I once again searched multiple times, at BBC, The Guardian, Forbes and WallStreetJournal but I only ever found articles, 1 at TheGuardian and then another at Forbes, but all of them are clearly trivial and PR, especially the Forbes one since it lists it was submitted by a "special contributor", which essentially actually means someone who was not part of the Forbes staff and this is because it was actually a freelance journalist, meaning it was a honeypot area for paid PR and that's expected since the entire article is paid PR, focusing again only with what the company would said itself, and what's worse is that the company itself is only ever actually mentioned once, that's not substantial and it's sure as hell not convincing. I'll also note this was speedy deleted twice before including as advertising, so that's certainly something that should've been kept to mind when accepting at AfC, and it's something that should especially kept to mind if it's noticeable of having PR campaign intentions.

Now, although The Telegraph article has the claim that they're the first peer-to-peer marketplace, this is still quite outweighed given the concerns I have listed here, therefore it still seems too soon; it's also happened before here at AfD that an article has a significant claim but, if it's still advertising and PR, that is not a compromisable situatiation, and we would essentially be succumbing to accepting said advertising and PR. I'll note this was actually speedy deleted twice before, SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. Of note is that the Forbes, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal sources mentioned in the nomination are not in the article at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment appears to refer to another list than the one there - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom - brochurelike, badly sourced and I find the article sources, Northamerica1000's proffered linkdump and the results of a basic BEFORE utterly unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – My commentary is about this company and mobile app. I provided sources that provide coverage about the company for Wikipedia's users to consider. It is not a "linkdump". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets
  copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000. Additional sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Edited the article to make it sound less promotional. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All of those sources still fit with exactly what I said above, it only focuses with triviality which includes listing what the own company says, and none of that substantial. One of the links listed then actually says "To make moving home easy!" and another "to make hone viewing easy from the desk!" (all contents still never go apart from company-supplied information and PR, making it non-independent and unconvincing) which is clear PR, it's helps to actually see what the concerns are of listed links like the ones above before actually staying that they establish notability, because they are certainly not.

As it is, I have explicitly explained this article was solely started as a PR campaign and that is enough said there, especially then contributing to the fact all supplied sources were only ever PR, and that certainly is not surprising considering that's exactly the company's activities and what's being ponied as "news" sources above, therefore Copy-editing advertising is not meaningful if it's basically adding cosmetics to an unimproved article. Once we ridiculously started accepting such advertisements for such trivialness of "having sources" is when we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All of the sources are basically trivial-(most of them describes the company in the words of the company!!) and advertorial in nature ,used to improve PR.Wikipedia is not a place to house advertisements and such trivial matters even if they appear in reliable sources!
  ❯❯❯ Vanguard 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep based on the list of sources already discussed in the previous !keep votes. Review of those lists show notability via significant coverage in
  reliable sources. Article is a keeper. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - What was talked about was the analysis of why the sources are in fact unacceptable, given the specific analysis above. It is not the same thing to simply state "It's keepable" without actually giving one's own thoughts and examples, including the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- typical "corporate spam" on a minor private company. No indications of notability or significance and the sources listed above are not convincing. If kept, the article would need to be reduced to a couple of sentences, as the content is mostly fluff and / or trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- article created by an account with no other contributions (
  WP:BOGOF; let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I thought we should judge current state of that article, not its origins. Taking your proposal as rule, we should delete nearly all articles about companies. As of this article in question, I will wait for more comments before my own judgement (but I´m close to keep now). Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having most company articles start as spam is not a reason to encourage spam, that's a frankly boggling statement. It's a highly relevant factor at AFD in my experience - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. essentially per K.e.coffman ; his suggestion is exactly right--we should delete all articles on companies or anything else written by promotional editors. It would undoubtedly narrow down our coverage perhaps more than it should, but the entire principle of WP is that it is written by volunteers without a COI. The major companies, like the major people in many lines of work, will be written by volunteers. The otherscan rely on the web for their publicity. Assisting those who want to do promotion is corrupting the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotional tone can often be addressed by simply
  copy editing articles, rather than deleting them in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  WP:BOGOF editing is bad for the encyclopaedia and should not be encouraged. Regardless of sources (which are pretty weak btw), I say to IAR and delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The stubified article is now eligible for Speedy deletion as A7. So a delete per
  WP:DEL1 as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I restored the article content for now. It is typically poor form to strip down an article and its sources to the point of qualifying it for A7 deletion, particularly while it is being discussed at AfD. Also, regarding the latter, some users base notability assessments upon the state of sources within an article, rather than the
  overall availability of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My apologies on that. Thanks for pointing out this issue. I'm alright with your reverting my edits, which anyway weren't intended to push the article towards A7. Thanks. Lourdes 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is actually one of the problems with poorly written promotional content. Strip it down, it become A7 eligible. Keep the promotional content during the AFD and it is promotional content eligible for
  WP:NOTPROMO. Just to clarify Lourdes, there is nothing "poor form" in removing promotional unsourced content. It is a much better thing to do rather than add back unsourced promotional content which is pretty much against our content policies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  WP:IAR doesn't perhaps apply. (Of course, NOTPROMO is appropriate). If the issue is that there are reliable sources available confirming the notability of the corporation but the current state of the article is promotional in nature (and in all probability written by PR personnel), then why don't we stubify the article to a line or two and nuke the rest? (and David Gerard, the linkdump usage is hylarius; I am going to use it on someone) Lourdes 10:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I provided sources that provide coverage about the company for Wikipedia's users to consider. It was not a "link dump", which comes across as assumptive that the content of the sources were not considered. I don't find this humorous at all; rather, it comes across as potential bad faith toward good faith contributors. Source content was entirely considered prior to my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that NA. I saw the word and liked it, because I want to paste it on the face of another specific editor soon enough (of course, never intended for you) :) Just chill and take it jovially. You do outstanding work all around and especially here at Afd, which even David knows. Lourdes 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to reconsider "using" this type of statement toward users on Wikipedia; I certainly would not consider it. It only promotes bad faith. I'm just chilling, so it's up to you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh he won't mind it. He's a good friend and I'm going to use it only in humor with him. Convivial is the tenor of the month :) Come on NA, you're the last editor here I would be debating with. Lourdes 11:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then it's okay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The removal of sources from this article[1] by User:Lemongirl942 was in extremely poor form, and calls into question the validity of this AFD. If such actions are repeated here, or in other AFD discussions, then administrator intervention is highly suggested. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I had replied to this on my talk but didn't notice it was pasted here as well. I do not see why removing a bunch of links is "extremely poor form, and calls into question the validity of this AFD" and neither do I get the reasoning behind "If such actions are repeated here, or in other AFD discussions, then administrator intervention is highly suggested". I removed the sources because Wikipedia is
  not a link farm. My very next edit was to move the links to the talk page. Whoever wants to improve it could still find those on the talk page. AfD or not, it doesn't give an excuse to dump a bunch of links on the article. If they can be inserted as refs, do that. Otherwise put them on the talk page and let someone else incorporate it. I find it a lot more weird that unsourced promo stuff is added back to the article with rationales like Sorry, but in the process you qualified the article for WP:A7 deletion, as a user noted at the AfD discussion, and is a proponent of. A new editor is probably gonna learn from it and repeat stuff like this. Just a couple of days ago I had a hard time trying to convince a new user User:Xboxmanwar that citations are necessary. It is stuff like this that encourages newer editors to think that it is OK to add back promo content or let re-add unsourced stuff. They could simply point to edits like these (made by experienced users who are "supposed to lead by example") and justify their behaviour. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Lemongirl942, calm down and carry on. You are ordinarily absolutely composed and despite your relatively fresh tenure at Wikipedia, are quite a good example at Afd discussions. I find your response here angry and unnecessary. What 1Wiki... has mentioned is a non-starter. There's no admin action required or called for; your edits are absolutely competent and with diligence. At the same time, in your anger, I suspect you are throwing off missiles at other editors who also are attempting a good faith contribution to the article. There's no need for that. Both NA and you are great at what you're doing. I might not agree with your massive deletionist tendency at Afds (in the sense that I have yet to find a keep !vote from you), but that is your editorial choice and nothing for anyone to complain about. Like I said, calm down and carry on. Comments like 1Wiki's don't require response. Lourdes 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  ^Pocketed 08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources found by
  WP:IAR would not "preven[t] [editors] from from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".

  Cunard (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The current article is a blatant advertisment as the Delete comments have established above and the information listed above is simply emphasizing in the blatancy of literally going to specifics about what the company not only knows, but wants to advertise about itself, which is the amount of money it holds for its clients and investors, how it can be serviced and used, where to contact them of their locations and other company information. None of that establishes convincing for notability or substance, because it's only suitable for their own website, which is exactly what the current article is. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: "improving the article through copy editing: This does not work when the entity is non-notable. The content is essentially fluff and / or about company's aspirations and funding. If such content is removed, there would be nothing there, and wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article (as recently re-written) meets
  WP:N and isn't overly promotional (or really promotional at all). Hobit (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• None of it establishes any actual notability either literally considering it's only now focusing with the general information to advertise about the company and its funding, followed by sources literally republishing the company's own words about its said funding, business plans and other such information; none of that establishes notability, especially not when such blatant sources listed have been and still are notorious for republishing PR. This can be emphasized by the sheer and literal fact every single source listed is only actually focusing with said funding and business plans, therefore that's not independent and thus it's also not convincing. WP:N be damned if it means Wikipedia will not accept an advertisement, along with considerations of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • repeat after me: "sources are notability in the context of Wikipedia". That was pretty much the grand compromise. Otherwise we're just in "IDONTLIKEIT vs ILIKEIT". The company has reasonable coverage that meets
    WP:N. We aren't here to judge the media or judge what people write about. Rather we are here to build an encyclopedia. We can write a reasonable (if short) article about this company based on reliable sources. So we should. Or at least we shouldn't complain when others do that work. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2016 (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.