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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolabtree[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kolabtree (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)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have created for promotional purposes. Couldn't get much information from Google. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: 2402:3A80:671:2DBE:42C0:DB8A:42CE:ED9B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
  • Response The reference you added from manufacturingchemist is based on a company announcement therefore is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from machinedesign is based on an infographic released by the company supported by quotations from their CEO. It has no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from entrepreneur.com is a listing and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Tushar.ghone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
  • Response It is not enough that the topic is "discussed" in multiple "secondary reliable sources". The content of those references must also meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you point to any reference you believe meets the criteria? HighKing++ 14:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be unfair to discuss each individual article here. The topic as a whole, looks notable and passes the notability test. the article needs improvement, not deletion.Tushar.ghone (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? That's the whole point of AfD! We don't look at the "topic as a whole", we look to see if it meets out policies/guidelines. You say it "passes the notability test" but you can't point to even one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability??? HighKing++ 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Manufacturing Chemist - no byline (press release?), specific-audience online trade publication
  2. Machine Design - specific-audience online trade publication, article mostly about the industry in general and not Kolabtree
  3. Onrec 1 and Onrec 2 - byline is for a "publisher at Onrec" which suggests to me this is a press release being republished. In any case, another specific-audience online trade publication.
  4. AIM Group - another specific-audience online trade publication.
  5. Nature - Nature is generally a good source but this fails WP:ORGIND as it's simply the founder describing the company with no original content.
  6. AIthority - another specific-audience online trade publication.
  7. Manufacturing Tomorrow - this is not about Kolabtree, it's by a Kolabtree freelancer, which means squat for the notability of the company.
  8. Personnel Today - another specific-audience online trade publication.
  9. Yale Postdoctoral Association - this is a classified ad, even if it is wearing a nice suit because it graduated from Yale.
  10. Entrepreneur - crap listicle with zero in-depth coverage
  11. Superb Crew - interview with marketing director of Kolabtree, zero independent content.
It's total crap. There's no sourcing in anything approaching a wide-audience publication. Complete failure of WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is obviously being canvassed off-wiki - it beggars belief that this new/infrequent editors just so happened to arrive and all argue for keep. I hope the closer weighs these arguments accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Note — Faizal batliwala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's getting close to a consensus or already, to be careful I relist to allow for more time and more people joining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Sunita.wiliam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: I have made sifgnificant changes to the page including edits that removed promotional jargon and unreliable sources, also added a few more sources. The article substantially changed since the AFD opened and looks better now.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions determine - via looking at the quality of all potential sources - the notability of a topic, not the quality of an article. Cleanup is a good thing, but is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned; see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, the article has significantly improved since the discussion opened. Look at the sources, there could be no sources better than these and discuss the subject in-depth and meets the requirements. Tushar.ghone (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree that some of the more gushing parts of the original article have been trimmed but you seem to miss the entire point of requiring references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. This is a *different* standard that references that may be used to support citations and facts within the article. Since this AfD, the following sources were added:
So in summary, not a single reference added to the article (nor any I have been able to find) are anything more than company announcements and PR or article drummed up by company publications. Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate spam nor the Yellow Pages. If you think this topic is notable and that sources exist which meet the criteria (as per WP:NCORP) then please post links here. The minimum number is two for a topic to meet the requirements of notability. HighKing++ 16:15, 28 March 2020 (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.
More