Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecteam (3rd nomination)

Connecteam

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Connecteam
• Articles for deletion/Connecteam (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Connecteam (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Connecteam (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)

The first AfD was... somewhat disrupted, but the rationale is substantially the same as that one, I just kinda forgot to renominate after the DRV (oops). In my judgement, there is no way in hell the subject in question meets ORGCRIT, whether in english or non-english sources, and nothing I've seen since the aforementioned discussions move the needle in the slightest. Here's hoping if anyone brings up new sources that they're at least vaguely plausible in therms of meeting WP:SIRS? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant and persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the company, such as Globes Calcalist Geektime Jerusalem Post Globes 2 Globes 3 Whizkin (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

  @Whizkin, are you aware that funding announcements are explicitly listed at WP:ORGTRIV? They are neither significant coverage, nor independent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, but I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the policy, which says 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.' These are not standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage based merely on a press release. In my opinion, these are full-blown articles about the company, containing analysis beyond the capital event. Whizkin (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Routine coverage of capital raises includes the marketing material companies put out and the churn directly derived from it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  A large fraction of business press coverage is initiated as a result of public relations work by companies. Dismissing any coverage that results from a funding press release as "trivial" seems excessive. Is that written somewhere, or is it your interpretation?

  And, there are plenty of other sources about the company unrelated to funding, for example:

  Calcalist

  Geektime

  Ice

  Ynet Whizkin (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Whizkin... The whole point of NCORP is to avoid hosting articles purely composed of PR from the companies being written about. What did you think WP:ORGIND was for? Are you sure you want to assert the second article has any semblance of meeting ORGIND? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the second source from the above list, which is an interview, does not meet the requirement "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." - I'll strike it out. Whizkin (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)