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 . I'm aware this was already closed once as such, but there is still absolutely no consensus to be found in this discussion, and it has been a month. Star Mississippi 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchero[edit]

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

Pitchero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine reports of fundraising, partnerships and the like. Maduant (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could rewrite this page as an article about Pitchero the website and not the company, in which case (even by your own admission), there are two valid sources (Telegraph.co.uk product review and The Gloucestershire Echo customer use case and feedback). For this reason, I actually think this still passes! (Our perennial disagreement seems to be about whether the products and services and activities undertaken by an organization count as coverage about the organization itself; in my book it is, but in your book it is not. In this case, Pitchero is both a company and a website.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. NCORP is a guideline for either a company *or* a product, that is true. But in my opinion, none of the sources mentioned meet the guidelines if the topic was the website (or its product) either, see WP:PRODUCTREV. Perhaps other product reviews exist but I haven't checked for that since the topic is the company. HighKing++ 19:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the complete dismissal of Richard Tyler's three articles focusing on the company in The Sunday Telegraph (which to be fair should only count as "one" article since they are by the same person in the same publication). While it's true he does rely a lot on quotes from the founders, in each article the journalist has made some effort to try to verify their claims through third parties – e.g. verifying their claims about traffic from rugby clubs (and others) through Hitwise, naming clubs that are actually using Pitchero. In addition, Tyler himself does provide a bit his own analysis and opinion on Pitchero's prospects. While the first article in particular is light on substance (because it's still early days for the company), and it's clear that Tyler *hopes* that the company will succeed, in the second article in particular, he explains the reasons why he thinks the company is positioned to weather the economic downturn. I think that's quite different from simply regurgitating press releases, or simply taking everything a founder/entrepreneur tells you at face value. And if the company had performed badly or was poised to fail, he was ready to report that as well; that's sort of the point of the column. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you're trying to shoehorn those articles (in bulk) into our guidelines. We don't take articles in aggregate - see WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the requirements. None of those articles individually meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a series of articles by the same journalist in the same publication covering the same company. I think that is a fair exception, in this case. Just like we would only count it as "one" source for notability purposes. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on making an exception is not supported by any of our guidelines and goes against WP:SIRS. For good reason I believe - for example since the articles are written at different points in time and so the data points change - what might be relevant on one date may not be on the next. HighKing++ 14:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, MULTSOURCES refers to the definition of "multiple sources" for the purposes of ascertaining whether multiple sources exist that discuss the topic and assist in establishing notability - it means that individual articles from the same author or publisher could as one source. But - this doesn't mean that we can aggregate the sources' content. That (incorrect) interpretation would result in a hypothetical situation where we would need to aggregate hundreds of articles over many decades from a single author for the purposes of evaluating it as a single source - that is not correct. Whereas SIRS distinctly says *individual* sources must be evaluated. HighKing++ 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is another point in our perennial disagreement: From the standpoint of organizational history, I am very interested in how an entity evolves over time. Therefore, the point-in-time snapshots are extremely important, and help us to tell a more complete story about the entity, as long as we take care to put each claim or fact in context (e.g., citing which year, etc.); and if they are also in-depth enough and written by secondary sources, they should count toward notability. Yes, it would be "better" if the author had combined the three articles into a full-page retrospective on the company, but in traditional print newspaper reporting this is increasingly unlikely; and if you read the three articles, they do refer to the previous and the second one does ask the question of whether the initial assessment was warranted. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funding announcements are all there is outside of the items discussed above, which we can't use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is not relevant. This is not a biography of a living person. Of course we should always be careful about what we say about living people regardless. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources provide independent analysis and reporting about Pitchero (its app and its website). Coverage about a company's app and its website is coverage about the company itself (about what services the company is offering to consumers). It would not make sense to have separate articles about "Pitchero's app" and "Pitchero's website" instead of an article just about "Pitchero".

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services: "A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy."

    Cunard (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I've already commented above on the Telegraph article which was mentioned by Cielquiparle above. It has no in-depth "Independent Content" - the information about the company is generalised and not in-depth (as is required) and it also relies almost entirely on an interview with people connected with the company (including the founder). You have also misinterpreted NCORP. It covers topics about *either* companies *or* products and says that you can include info about one in the article on the other. So, in an article about a company, it is OK to have a section dealing with the product and vice versa. It doesn't mean that you can use articles about a product to establish the notability of a company - which is what you appear to be saying. Here, we're trying to establish the notability of the company. None of the (very selective) extracts you've included provide anything close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can reach that conclusion - the website and app are products and even a brief perusal of NCORP guidelines say the exact opposite. For example, WP:INHERITORG explains that the company cannot inherit notability and says The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. WP:ORGCRIT says that the company is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:SIRS says that individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and each source must Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. if another aspect of a company is covered. WP:CORPDEPTH specifically states that Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Can you point to anywhere in our guidelines that suggests that coverage of how to explore the options on a company's website or how to use their app is meaningful in the context of establishing the notability of the company? HighKing++ 12:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider coverage about a company's website to be different from coverage about the company itself. The website is the company. The company is the website. Cunard (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so it's just your opinion and there's nothing in the guidelines? Fine. It would be a lot easier if you put this up-front on your !votes so we know they're not based on policy/guidelines. HighKing++ 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" include "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products".

    Significant coverage of a "corporation's facilities" is considered significant coverage of the corporation. Likewise, significant coverage of a "corporation's website" is considered significant coverage of the corporation. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah cmon, that's a stretch even for you. The documentary film provided as an example is very definitely *not* described as simply coverage of the corporations facilities, rather it is looking at the environmental impact of the corporation. At best, coverage of the website is more akin to a product review. Which as you know doesn't contribute to the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing++ 11:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your interpretation of the guideline is that a source looking at the "environmental impact of the corporation's facilities" is looking at the "environment impact of the corporation" so it establishes notability for the corporation. Likewise, a source looking at the "the corporation's website or app" is looking at "the corporation" (about the work a company has done to draw in customers to earn revenue) so establishes notability for the corporation. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time per a request on my talk page following a previous close of "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2023 (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