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. I think those advocating Delete put forth a more persuasive argument about the inadequacy of the sources used in the article and those cited here. LizRead!Talk! 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm also seeing a couple other sources from USA Today[1] and Polygon[2] alongside what is in the article. I find it hard to believe that several reliable publications are all PR coverage.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 15:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
So the company director and founder in both the references, demonstrating the software in a classic piece of PR. Both of them fail
WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 15:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
How? I don't believe the authors are affiliated in any way nor is there any proof that the content was developed by them.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 15:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Come on. Its classic PR. More so, because its the company founder doing the work, its fails
WP:ORGIND. References for company's need to be in-depth, signicant and independent per
WP:SIRS, which is part of
WP:NCORP. Those two references are not independent. That is the company director holding sessions to promote his business. So they are not references, that satisfy
WP:SIRS. That is the core problem with the article. The first references, lists the costs of the services, which means it comes from a press-release or the company website. They are junk references. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NCORP - Quincy Jones and Harry Connick Jr. promoting their product in USA Today2 interviews that also include a basic product description do not provide
WP:ORGIND nor
WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability - it is
WP:PROMO. Similarly, CEO Chris Vance promoting the product in a brief post on Polygon based on the company's self-description fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND, and is
churnalism from a Mashable post (also a source in the article) that substantially relies on Vance and a basic description of the product. The article also includes non-RS
WP:MEDIUM, primary trademark information, and recycled press releases about the product launch published in multiple outlets:
Fast Company,
Jet,
Hollywood Reporter,
TechCrunch, that substantially rely on quotes from Jones and Vance and a basic product description. An online search finds press releases, non-RS review sites, and more promotional content. There appears to be insufficient sources with
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND to support notability.
Beccaynr (
talk) 20:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: I was the one who deprodded this. I didn't feel the sources were bad enough to justify PROD. They are largely written in a style I personally find grating, but
USA Today,
The Hollywood Reporter, and
CNET are all considered reliable, which tips the balance from "they paid all these places to write about them" to "these places interviewed the obvious sources while writing about them".
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Whether a source is paid for the promotion is not the only consideration - these sources do not offer significant coverage per
WP:CORPDEPTH that is independent per
WP:ORGIND. The
WP:NCORP guideline helps us identify content to exclude per the second prong of
WP:N, i.e. per
WP:NOT policy - in the
WP:ORGCRIT section, it states The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for
advertising and promotion. A reliable source is not enough to support notability when it relies on promotional quotes from people connected to the company and basic descriptions of the product.
Beccaynr (
talk) 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, the
December 27, 2018 CNET source in the article quotes Connick, the product website, a Playground Sessions spokesperson, a Flowkey (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, a Simply Piano (competitor product) spokesperson talking about their product, and basic descriptions of products and pricing, which lacks independence per
WP:ORGIND, because it regurgitates the promotional narrative from related parties, and lacks sufficient
WP:CORPDEPTH because it does not provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.
Similarly, the briefer
January 21, 2019 USA Today source quotes the product, Connick, prices, and promotes an interview with Connick, and the
April 18, 2013 USA Today source is more about Jones generally, not Playground Sessions, while the brief coverage in the
April 18, 2013 Hollywood Reporter source is based on quotes from Jones and Vance, as well as basic product information, including pricing, before it moves off-topic to Jones' induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and his birthday.
Beccaynr (
talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP. USA Today and the like may be reliable, but the specific articles by those organizations that are being cited here are not independent, per Beccaynr's initial comment. The article's subject has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what the article needs to establish notability. -
Aoidh (
talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply. As pointed out above, we require sources which contain
in-depthindependent content on the company. None of the sources meet the criteria as they rely entirely on information provided by the company or people affiliated with the company (fails ORGIND).
HighKing++ 16:21, 12 December 2022 (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.