Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periscopic

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. Sandstein 16:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Periscopic

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

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

The original article about an Oregon company was created by a connected contributor in 2012, then WP:PRODded and deleted within a month as non-notable. A new article was created by another editor in 2018; article refers to one award, but still does not demonstrate notability. Article should be deleted and the page redirected again to periscope, which is the topic of incoming links using that adjective. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll see if I can address notability with the topic/article within the timeframe of this AFD. Jessamyn (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Periscopic clearly meets the notability guidelines for corporations and organizations. There are many examples of significant coverage of their work in independent, reliable, secondary sources. I just added some more references to journalistic and academic sources. --AmeliaMN (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on these sources, it passes WP:SIGCOV: the Wired and Fast Company; the Times link leads to a blank page. I would support keeping it, but the page has far too much unreliable information in it. Once trimmed down, I would !vote to keep, but right now, it's a candidate for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I trimmed it down, I think most of what is there is ok and I think this company is much more than just accolades for their onebig dataviz piece. I support the suggestion to rename the article Periscopic (company).Jessamyn (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I see citations that might support notability for an article on its best-known work US Gun Deaths (visualization), rather than confirming notability of the company itself. If better citations for the company are added, may I suggest that the page be moved to Periscopic (company) as not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? – Fayenatic London 15:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are now 28 references in the article. Most of the references merely discuss an infographic produced by the company. Their "U.S. Gun Deaths" infographic has been published and written about in lots of publications - but notability isn't inherited and none of the references discuss *the company* in depth (or at all). Having looked at all the references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that do. I've provided a quick analysis of the references below:
- This from Inspire, this first reference from The Fast Company, This from Digital Impact, this from CommArts and the second from Fast Company are based on information provided by the company and/or via interviewing officers/founder of the company. Contains no "Independent Content" (i.e. contains and relies on content provided by the company or based on announcements or PR), fails WP:ORGIND
- This Google Books reference is a book written by one of the co-founders of the company, it mentions the company in passing, contains no in-depth information on the company and is not significant coverage of the company, fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. This next book reference is a chapter written by officers of the company, also fails for the same reasons. This book reference highlights a cool infographic produced by the company but fails for the same reasons as the others.
- This from billmoyers.com, this article from The Trace, this from Wired.com, this from The Atlantic, this from The Guardian,this from Peachpit, this book on data visualisation by Andy Kirk and this mention in a paper are all similar in that they discuss an infographic produced by the company. This from National Geographic goes one step further and interviews one of the founders. None of the references contain in-depth information on the company and none could be considered as significant coverage on the company. These references fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
- This is an announcement of the 2017 APDU Data Viz Award Winners, this article in the New York Times, this from The Economist and this from Poynter are mere mentions-in-passing which may mention the company name but none of the articles provide in-depth information on the company, they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. This from the Information is Beautiful awards fails for the same reason and this Company Profile at the same awards website fails WP:ORGIND.
- This is the LinkedIn page of one of the founders. This is an infographic from their website. Self-published. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This is a Blog and is not considered a reliable source.

While it is clear that their infographics are talked about, there doesn't appear to be any references that contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the person who created the most recent version of the article so won't speak to whether it should be deleted (I obviously think it's okay) but would suggest itf it's slated for deletion perhaps collating the information in it, trimmed down if needed, into the Kim Rees article? Jessamyn (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company is quoted in verbatim a lot in the wired article and there's not multiple, significant, reliable, independent, wide audience coverage to assert WP:NORG level of notability. I liken cobbling together a ton of snippet coverage to rounding up pieces of broken glass and trying to add up the area. You can't substitute them for a large single sheet no matter how many pieces you collect. Graywalls (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Graywalls, some of it might be incorporated into Kim Rees, but it's not really a merge. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:20, 28 April 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.