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. Wizardman 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather over the top advertising for non-notable new web site. Article has a large number of sources, but all go back to blogs, rather than reliable sources, and fails WP:WEB. Author has promised to seek out reliable sources, but none have been forthcoming. Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the article, I contacted the site's CEO and asked for more reliable sources in order to justify this article's existence. He explained to me that since they're working outside the US and cannot afford using a US-based PR company, they have a major disadvantage in trying to get foot-in-the-door press coverage, as compared to their competitors. I agree that the articles provided are indeed mostly blogs, which is problematic, and I generally agree with Mayalld's position on WP:WEB.
However, in this case I must say that using press coverage as a basis for a deletion policy may be problematic in and by itself. It is no secret that PR companies know how to get press coverage from major magazines. Press coverage from major magazines leads to WP credibility. Small companies are then inherently at a disadvantage, since they usually cannot afford the PR companies, and thus have a harder time getting press, and subsequent WP cred.
In MeeMix's case, for example, the company was chosen as one of the most promising startup companies in a recent startup convention. But, as noted, since it cannot afford a major PR company, it is less likely to have the press spotlight pointed in its direction. As such, when it comes to startup companies, we may be inadvertantly "making the rich richer", and not giving the small guys a fair chance. Obviously, WP is not a company showcase or the yellow pages. However, if we intend to give an objective reflection of reality, we may currently be biased in favor of bigger, richer companies. I think that, in some cases, we can be a tad more flexible when assessing credibility, by allowing the use of other sources besides big magazines to reflect on the subject's notability. Rabend (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the lack of a PR firm, I can find plenty of press releases. What I can't find is coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable as it is a reprint from the Techcrunch blog. It's not enough to sway my opinion at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources provided cannot be labeled as reliable, accoding to WP rules.
I personally still think that we have a general problem as I mentioned above, in that good PR can get you into big (reliable) corporate magazines, and since this is partly a function of $$, we present a biased picture when using this sort of screening as the sole method for deeming something as worthy of WP existence. I think that perhaps we should consider additional indicators of relative importance, so as to have more information availble on WP, rather than less information. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Rabend (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not the forum for discussing policy and guidelines. Perhaps you should take this up at the village pump. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take it up there.
I've been reading through some WP pages about what qualifies as a reliable source, and I think that on the subject of start-up internet companies, well-known professional blogs may be deemed reliable. For example, this page states that professionals writing in blogs may be viewed as reliable sources. The referenced professional bloggers in my article typically write about internet companies, their area of expertise, on their established, popular sites. As such, their sites act as the media through which their reviews are expressed.
Nevertheless, if you are still intent on keeping your position on this matter, I will stop at this point. I hoped this contribution to the WP knowledgebase would meet its requirements (and in my opinion it should, in this particular subject area), but I respect your judgement. Rabend (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2008 (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.