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.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Defenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

not notable, also deleted prior Jilljoejack (talk) 16:58, 21 November 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 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT - I looked the page over and I honestly have no idea what it's trying to describe as its formatting and grammar are atrocious and it doesn't even describe in any clear detail what the company in question is - it seems to be a WP:COATRACK for the legal cases it has been involved in? There's honestly probably a notable subject here but the article needs to be blown up and started over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - most sourcing is poor and the content is a hot mess, but the few actual media sources suggest there’s something here. I think it can be extensively rewritten and the sourcing culled, and I just tagged it accordingly. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm striking my keep vote and voting delete. I just spent some more time reading the material thinking I could fix this, but on second glance the sourcing is poor. For example, the WaPost piece is an opinion column, and the Inc piece is a guest writer. If you take out the court filings there's not much left. I think it would just be faster and easier to blow it up, and only rewrite it if enough decent sources can be found. So I'm going for WP:TNT. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as I said on creation, "unlike in 2013 when it went to AFD, there are independent reliable sources". The article seems to attract a lot of attention from WP:SPAs. tedder (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except unlike in 2013, the appropriate guideline, WP:NCORP, has been rewritten in parts and now provides more exacting requirements for references to establish notability. The article itself has too many references (and a lot of them are dead) and most fail the criteria for establishing notability. Tedder, can you provide links to the best WP:THREE sources you believe meet the requirements as per WP:NCORP (and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH)? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly surprised- but there are some fairly in-depth articles. Inc. has a nice interview, VICE provides a good overview of the legal shenanigans (note this is an updated link from what is in the ref), and the articles from Eugene Volokh and Public Citizen's Paul Levy do a good job of explaining the company (and it's part of a series of entries about them in Volokh's articles). You probably object to the last one because it's in the opinion section, but please at least skim it to see how much depth is there- and as WP:ORGIND describes, it certainly qualifies as "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". Also note "CL&P Blog" is the official Public Citizen blog. It's easy to discount because it's just on typepad. tedder (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tim Templeton is 99.999% a paid editor and not disclosing. Edit history tells it all. This disaster of a page should be deleted. While some of the sources might be reliable, it fails corp and in-depth by a mile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilljoejack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - Jilljoejack is a brand new editor who immediately started following my AfD votes and harassing me. Oddly familiar with corp and in-depth requirements for a new user. Sock investigation opened. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tim Templeton is a paid editor. Just look at the edit history. He creates company pages that aren't notable then wastes Wikipedia's time reviewing and deleting. He never discloses. He should be banned and he fails the "duck test".Jilljoejack (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Personal attacks aren't tolerated here. If any of you are thinking of putting up a fight, do it somewhere else, NOT here. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - nom Jilljoejack indeffed for sock puppetry and persistent attacks, and extended protection has been rightfully applied to this page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Court documents fail the criteria as the company is often self-described or described by the opposing litigation party (both are unreliable for the purposes of establishing notability). Many of the articles have been written by relying entirely on interviews or information provided by the company or are from blogs, or the blog sections of news websites. Others are mere mentions with no details on the company. In order to meet WP:ORGIND, a reference must contain "Independent Content" which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on the absence of any good references for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails to meet the notability requirements, especially those set in WP:ORGIND. While there are a lot of sources mentioned most of them are blogs and interviews (as already mentioned above) which are neither independent nor original. Momer313 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources from Columbus Dispatch, Herald Journal, Tech Cocktail and Search Engine Journal in the article seem to be reliable. And so are the ones indicated by Tedder. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:JUNK not notable, also deleted prior as it has no redeeming qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Eric Carr (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tedder is a compromised paid editor who posted this page solely as a vendetta over a payment dispute for paid edits on Wikipedia. Conflict of interest noticeboard has been posted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tedder Eric Carr (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with a WP:TNT deletion because the first version of the article is a short, acceptable version that can be reverted to if there is consensus against the current version.

  The coverage in The Columbus Dispatch, Vice, and The Washington Post are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The sources include quotes from the subject but also include independent analysis and negative coverage.

  The Columbus Dispatch article includes negative coverage of Profile Defenders: "Sometimes, these online-reputation firms can get a bad rap themselves. Last month, Park Avenue Funding, a New York mortgage-investment firm, filed a suit against Profile Defenders alleging company was using confidential information to extort money from it and damage its online reputation. Ruddie, of Profile Defenders, said “the lawsuit filed by PAF is frivolous and based on assertions without merit.”"

  The Vice article casts Profile Defenders' work in a negative light: "Linked to at least some of the cases is a selection of companies run by a Richart Ruddie, including SEO Profile Defense Network LLC, and Profile Defenders. Profile Defenders specialises in 'online reputation management,' according to its website. In short, these companies and others are allegedly carrying out a pretty novel tactic to clean up content that would reflect negatively on its clients: filing fake lawsuits to encourage websites or online services to remove content."

  Cunard (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it fails WP:NCORP including on Columbus Dispatch one-liner and similar cursory coverage. Blacklisteffort (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteI can't find any references that meet the models for building up outstanding quality. A significant number of the articles have been composed by depending completely on meetings or data gave by the organization or are from online journals, or the blog areas of information sites. Others are simple notices without any subtitles on the organization. 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecoat12 (talk • contribs)
• Keep per User:Cunard Dq209 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at this ref that is mentioned by @Superastig: i.e. the Herald Journal is a press-release at [1]. It says on it. PRNewswire. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and DEL14. I can do a review of the refs if anybody wants it. The first 10 references are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if someone's feeling exceptionally kind, return it to draft until someone can make something of it. It's messy and promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 9 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.