Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal Angel (company) (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Angel (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal Angel (company). That AFD was heavily tainted by sockpuppets (two of the three voters, including the creator of this article), so I am requesting a second review of this article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed the previous AfD as keep, as the socking had not yet been detected--or, at least, I did not realize it. This article presents an increasingly common dilemma. It was written by an ed. who is a meat or sockpuppet of [an extremely prolific sockmaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277], who has written stereotyped promotional articles of hundreds of non-notable or barely notable companies, mainly in the field of computer services or financial services. The article was written after the master account was blocked, and is thus subject to speedy deletion as G5. On the other hand, the PC World reference is a substantial review, of the sort that does demonstrate notability. The TeleChrunch article is not just PR: the claims of the company are followed by a NPOV evaluation. The present form of the article is somewhat promotional: ref 4 does not say what it is supposed to--it simply lists all Bay area companies at the show, not claiming any of them to be particularly notable. Ref 3 is just an announcement--it refers to this article which is a substantial interview, though one where the interviewer simply lets the co-founder of the company say whatever he cares to and is thus a form of PR--but perhaps it was not cited because it was followed by some very skeptical blog postings. There's no evidence they have been actually successful.

I don't like to use G5 when the reason for the block is unrelated to the article, and the article is particularly good and someone not blocked is willing to take responsibility for it. None of these seem to be the case. I'm not actually doing the deletion myself just yet, as I want to encourage discussion.

The justification for G5 in cases like this is that If we manage to remove all the sockmaster's articles now present, and continue to remove them as they get submitted, then there will be no incentive for that editor to continue. It's the only defense we have. (I did not previously think this way, but the problems we have now been finding are so severe, that they threaten the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and it's time for emergency measures. I agree there's a problem about removing such a large body of content, and a few of the articles should be rewritten. Perhaps the time to rewrite them will be a little while in the future, once we get this editor to stop--and to rewrite them without any of their work in the edit history. I see only one alternative solution to G5, which is to require identification from editors, and that is such as drastic change in our principles that it is not yet time to propose it. It would be a serious compromise in our mission, but it's a better alternative than permitting promotional editing. We would lose truly open editing, but we'd still have an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, and its parentage may be questionable, but the subject appears notable. In the last AfD I noted one item of significant coverage, in the San Jose Mercury News, a regional reliable source. A new search now turns up a review at CNN/Travel + Leisure. By my scoring that's multiple independent reliable sources. If the article is kept I will add these sources to it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN piece contains a two-sentence paragraph about this company. Major contributors to this article, 54.215.50.142, SFMarkIV (talk · contribs), Samwppn85 (talk · contribs) and Ztwriter (talk · contribs), are all blocked. —rybec 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G5. The current RS coverage doesnt meet the GNG anyway, but even if it did, this article still qualifies for G5. This article was created by a paid editor who is possibly one of the prolific sockmasters in Wikipedia's history - deleting all of the articles that they write will remove their incentive to continue their abominable behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is some material that may be salvaged from the massive sock operation, this is not a good example. The way we 'stop' them is to hit them where it hurts - a large percentage of their customers demanding their money back because we eliminated the article they paid for. In this case, the notability is borderline at best and the coverage routine for this type of company. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about this area to say whether the sources provide enough notability. But I'll point out here that I have just deleted a laudatory sentence that was not supported by either of the sources cited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 and possibly salt per DGG, Kevin, and FreeRangeFrog above. If consensus is that there is enough to pass WP:GNG, then I'd still say WP:IAR delete, and possibly recreate if someone wants. Better to have an article unaffiliated with the paid editors' sockfarm. Ansh6 6 6 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had actually come here intending to G5 the article before I saw the AFD notice. I'm not actually seeing a compelling argument for notability. One good source (the Mercury article). Everything else is cursory. The CNN article that Melanie links devotes two sentences to this subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (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.