- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 13:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Atom Tickets
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Atom Tickets ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article currently relies on three references to the company's website, and three articles that are basically interviews with the CEO or with investors - these aren't independent, so don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I've looked for better sources, and I'm finding lots of similar stuff - articles based around interviews with directors of the company or with investors, and I'm seeing trivial coverage in business directories and listicles, but I haven't found anything with significant, independent coverage that would satisfy the requirements of CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit (blether) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep though barely. I think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP even though the current article needs to include links to that coverage to replace references to its own website. In addition to the two Variety articles currently cited in the article, I found the following four links [1] [2] [3] [4] from four different well-established media outlets. Pichpich ( talk) 21:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep - other sources include deadline, screenrant, mobile payments today, biz journals, retail dive, and a small mention in the wrap. Together, I believe GNG is met. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Those all look to me like rehashed press releases, mostly with a few choice words from the Ceo or an investor. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage called for at WP:NCORP, or any independent reviews of the app. GirthSummit (blether) 11:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
*Unenthusiatic keep. There's a certain type of technology news article that basically consists of close paraphrasing a press release, plus throwing in a few enthusiasms. Most of the above seem to fit that bill. That's not great coverage. However, if enough reliable sources feel the need to run these things, I think it is an indication of sufficient notability, and gets the subject into
WP:NCORP territory in the aggregate. (But I don't have to like it :/) --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment OK, so I'm getting the feeling that I'm out of step with the community here. At risk of being accused of
bludgeoning the process, I'll just draw attention to a couple of points made in
WP:CORPDEPTH. The section on 'Dependent coverage', which lists coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability', starts with:
press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
andany material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)
. It also notes thatquantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs
. I'd argue that what we are seeing with the coverage linked to above is a great deal of churnalism, generated by an active marketing effort on behalf of the company and its investors, aimed at getting their PR into reliable sources, but nothing that I've seen that would actually meet the bar of being significant, independent, secondary and reliable. If this app takes off, it will doubtless be written about independently, and we will see independent reviews and in-depth coverage appearing in sources - once that has happened, it would be time to write an article, but from what I can see we're not there yet. I know WP:TOOSOON generally covers biographies and movies rather than companies, but in my view that's what we're looking at here. GirthSummit (blether) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment OK, so I'm getting the feeling that I'm out of step with the community here. At risk of being accused of
bludgeoning the process, I'll just draw attention to a couple of points made in
WP:CORPDEPTH. The section on 'Dependent coverage', which lists coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability', starts with:
- Keep per sources provided by Pichpich and DannyS712. These sources provide significant coverage of the subject beyond what is provided by press releases. The existence of sustained coverage over a few years means this meets WP:SUSTAINED. feminist ( talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Feminist: you're an editor I've got a huge respect for, so I'm asking this to improve my understanding, not to nitpick - which of the links above do you think offers content which is genuinely independent of the company? I'm looking, but I'm not seeing it - am I missing something, or does my mental spam filter need recalibrating?
GirthSummit
(blether) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- For example,
this Variety article compared Atom's service to those from MoviePass and Sinemia. This means there is at least some commentary beyond a rehash of a press release. It's not much, but I think there is potential for this article to be rewritten into at least a Start-class article which provides a fair, non-promotional overview of this company. I may be wrong though, I'm not someone who frequently contributes to AfD.
feminist (
talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- You're right, that article does discuss other services - but as soon as it gets into discussing the subject of the article, it starts quoting the CEO. It seems to me that there's nothing there about the company and its ambitions that isn't coming out of the mouth of the CEO. This is what I'm talking about - lots of coverage, as you'd expect from a well-funded start-up with an active PR push, but nothing truly independent. I'd rather we wait until there's proper CORPDEPTH coverage available. GirthSummit (blether) 20:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- For example,
this Variety article compared Atom's service to those from MoviePass and Sinemia. This means there is at least some commentary beyond a rehash of a press release. It's not much, but I think there is potential for this article to be rewritten into at least a Start-class article which provides a fair, non-promotional overview of this company. I may be wrong though, I'm not someone who frequently contributes to AfD.
feminist (
talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Feminist: you're an editor I've got a huge respect for, so I'm asking this to improve my understanding, not to nitpick - which of the links above do you think offers content which is genuinely independent of the company? I'm looking, but I'm not seeing it - am I missing something, or does my mental spam filter need recalibrating?
GirthSummit
(blether) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- 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.