Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenPal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is the cleanup by Cunard negates any issues from sockpuppets. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPal

[edit]

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

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

Bryan M. Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by a recently banned sockpuppet a few months before he was banned. It's an advertisement for a lawn service firm, supported by "references" that are either PR, or notices of entry into a market, or about the general topic of similar actually notable firms. A respected editor Cunard has tried to rescue it by removing the worst of the advertising, but I think it is not rescuable, because there are no actually independent reliable sources.( If there were, Cunard would have added them). Thee is also the question of whether we should even try to rescue articles like this. The other articles from this editor have been deleted, and this should be also. It's the only way to stop paid editing in WP, when the paid editing is used to insert promotional articles.

I am also listing the article on the founder of the company. The same reasons apply. It's equally promotional. Some of the refs are different. They're apparent PR insertions in articles about a range of businesses, where his business is used as one of the many examples.

I congratulate the PR agent for their ability to get these mentions and articles placed. But they should have known to stay away from WP. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Keep both greenpal and Clayton pages. Both have significant coverage. Just implying that news are all PR generated and congratulating them for using a good PR firm, without providing any evidence or proof is not a justification for deletion.  Some of these appear to be respected publications with hard copies, such as Tampa Bay times, Times of San Diego, The Missouri Times, The Courier. Star Tribune. I just don't buy the nominator's argument that these are all PR. Looking at Clayton, he also has coverage in WSJ (twice), NBC news, Entrepreneur, CBS, American Express, etc. Also many of these sources would work for GreePal too, but not used in GreenPal page. I find it hard to believe someone could buy this much press, especially since the writers in many top publications could lose their jobs for accepting fees for writing. I do believe some of that is going on with smaller publications. So based on [[WP:GNG}} Wikipedia policy they both meet notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  both, per above. Both GreenPal and Bryan M. Clayton clearly meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. There isn't much reason to merge a notable person who is clearly covered by some of America's top reliable sources like the WSJ, NBC, Times of San Diego, and more. Nyangaman4 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep x2 pages Cunard did a great analysis. Each article IMO stands on it's own through enough citations independent of the other article. The page about GreenPal comps with AirBnB, Uber, DoorDash and other app-style-get-it-immediately technology that is significant, and there is significant coverage in this area. Bryan_M._Clayton page does have a couple shared references, but has significant coverage in very reliable sources that are not shared with the GreenPal page. Tennis Anyone?Talk 16:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously meets SIGCOV with lots of secondary reliable sources for each. Expect there will be opportunities to improve this subject as time goes on Duncan079 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard's references are besides the point. notability is not the only reason for deletion. The use of WP for advertising is an even stronger reason, one of the fundamental ruules in WP:NOT. I am at a loss for why people think WP should include advertising, or why otherwise good editors should facilitate PR. There's a simple way of telling: any article containing a quote from the founder should be assumed to be PR.. That is not encyclopedic content; of course we can remove it, but the purpose of including it can only be promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 2' If we had detected the sockpuppettry a few weeks earlier , this would have been a speedy G5. (creation by sockpuppet of banned user) . There are admins who would delete it under G5 nonetheless, on the basis that the difference is only technical, and the sockpuppettry is evident. I consider that a reasonable admin action, and I considered doing it, but decided not to, because I thought the deletion on bringing it here would be obvious enough-- and because, in admin actions, I try to act as conservatively as possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My google search makes this look notable. While the article may have started as PR and the original editor may have had questionable motivation, the subject bases notability guidelines Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GreenPal&oldid=1179990556"