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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SocialPicks[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This article was orginaly given a speedy deletion not notable tag, however - it's author told that it is a clearly significant company, as shown from the references. However, most of these references are just passing uses of the company's name (as pointed out in the talk page) RT | Talk 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I am not convinced that the company is not notable. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a classic case of, "We're gonna be big someday; just wait and see! Look at the big guys who've put money into this! So-and-so mentioned our name once! We're gonna be so big!" This might become notable; this might end up as an embarassed footnote in somebody's annual report, when they write off the investment. At this time, despite the bloated "cites" given (read the refutation on the talk page), it simply isn't notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you commented on the fact that SocialPicks powers the Social Buzz project of Reuters. Have you heard of them? Dimension31 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contagious. A company does not "catch" notability by providing services to a notable customer, any more than I acquired notability by selling books to Tony Bennett or William Rehnquist. (Or by having a Reuters wirephoto of me shaking hands with Barack Obama appear on Yahoo! this week.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said at all. SocialPicks isn't just "shaking hands" with Reuters, they're providing a substantial service for them. For example, back when Microsoft was picked by IBM to provide their OS, I think that would have been enough to establish Microsoft's notability. Dimension31 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the many cites rises above the "directory level" of information about the company. They all prove that the company exists, and that is all that they prove. Per WP:N and WP:CORP, there needs to be non-trivial coverage, and I just don't see ANY. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As it is currently written, this article doesn't substantiate notability. I think there is a big difference between being "featured" and being mentioned. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The company has been covered in many mainstream news sources and seems to have already generated a reputation. Dimension31 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just sent out several friendly notices. Dimension31 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As mentioned on the article talk page, the references need a bit of work. While it is true that the company has been 'covered' or at least mentioned in several places, what is at issue, is the scope and nature of the coverage. Currently, there are eleven references on the page, nine of which are unique and two are duplicates.

• 1. reuters - basically a mention that Reuters Stock buzz is powered by Social Picks, which could be notable, but the page is more or less an advert for SocialPicks with the option of getting a free account.
• 2. o'reilly - simply mentions the founder as a scheduled speaker (among many) at a financial conference.
• 3. mashable - NN blogpost primarily about UpDown. Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence.
• 4. yahoo finance - actually a crossposting from paidcontent.org. Reads more like an intro ad.
• 5. techcrunch - short blog post noting that SocialPicks is out of beta and a short description.
• 6. forbes.com - Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence.
• 7. moneysmartz.com - a copy of a list of websites posted in a Oct 2006 issue of Forbes, one of which is SocialPicks
• 8. wsj.com - Trivial mention of SocialPicks in a single sentence with a list of other new financial web sites.
• 9. washingtonpost.com - 2006 article mentioning that socialpicks is still being tested.
• 10. repeat of same cite as #6
• 11. repeat of same cite as #2

In my opinion, better sources are required to credibly establish the notability of this company. --Daddy.twins (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional and better sources are always a good thing, but I believe that this article already has many fine sources. Also, you seem to have been biased in your assessment because you did not comment on any of the positive things from some of the more substantive sources. Dimension31 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think I succinctly described the content of each of the sources, but I'm willing to discuss more. If the unsubstantive sources are removed, leaving those that are substantive, then we can discuss how those do or do not establish the notability of the company. Keep in mind, though, that getting funding, moving out of beta, being included in a list of new websites, or a description of services does not grant notability. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the reasons I believe it is notable, but I agree that it would be a good idea for someone to weed out those few non-substantive sources. Dimension31 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once you weed out the non-substantive sources, you would be left with... hold on, let me do the math... carry the three... rounding up... double check on the calculator... Zero... That's the number. Zero susbtantive sources. So, if the article has zero substantive sources, by what basis should it be kept? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current sources are substantive. Did you read then? Dimension31 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did. Lets do the analysis. [1] is a trivial mention of the service; it simply proves that someone uses it. Big deal. [2] is a list of speakers at a conference. Being invited to speak somewhere does not confer notability on a person; much less so on the company he works for. [3] mentions the service, but it hardly does so in any significant way; its a throw-away sentance at the end of the article. [4] only shows that venture capitalists have invested in the company. Marginal, but this can't be the ONLY thing that makes it notable. Thousands of failed, short lived, and otherwise non-notable companies get cash from venture capitalists. By itself, this shows nothing. [5] only notes that the service is now open for business. It doesn't mention anything more than that. [6] is probably the closest to a real, substantive, reliable source, but even here its only a 3 sentance mention in a much larger article, and if this is ALL, it seems to be quite a small amount to pin an article on. [7] has the same problem. The article DOES extensively cover 4-5 services in depth, but THIS one is a throw-away mention at the end. It basically says "Oh, yeah, SocialPicks exists too". It doesn't even bother to review them to the depth it reviews any of the others... Again, marginal, but if this is it, then we don't have any info here to hang the article on. Can you produce ANY article with more than a 3-4 sentance mention of the company, and ANY article which says more than "It exists, its new, people can use it" that sort of stuff? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at SocialPicks#_note-0? Dimension31 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- no immediate need to delete ... yet.Andycjp (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Daddy.twins' astute analysis on the sources. Metros (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep when I de-speedied it, I gave the edit summary "makes at least a claim to notability." that's just what I think at this point, also. I think it probably will become notable--I think the odds are fairly good that the affiliation with Reuters will do it. In the real world, it is not irrelevant whom a new start-up is affiliated with, or co-sponsored by. Whether we should extrapolate to notability from that is an interesting question--we do extrapolate in this manner for such things as motion picture productions. DGG (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per expert analysis by Daddy.twins. The sources have been shown not to meet WP:N. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Seems to have lots of piddly sourcing, but nothing that would firmly establish notability. It probably will become notable whether as Reuters big new thing or a glorous failure. But it isn't yet. Montco (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I will go with the Keep option. I see that it has been featured is some major media papers/magazines such as the Washington Post as well as Forbes and those elements are properly sourced as does the partnership with Reuters, a major media agency. So sounds just notable enough for me.--JForget 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Featured" is a lot different than "mentioned." If you take a look at the several evaluations of the sources above, you'll see that none of the sources are significant coverage of the service. Metros (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict with post above by Metros) Did you read the sources? Featured is not an accurate description, as that implies the company was one of the major focuses of those articles. Named is a better word, since the articles (see my and Daddy.twins' analysis above) only mention the company in passing, often as a short sentance in an article which is discussion something else entirely. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Daddy.twins. The articles subject, per refs, does not seem to be notable at this point. --Chetblong^{T C} 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Orange Mike. Ward3001 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I see nothing notable about that site, it's another of a million new social websites created each month, no reason to cover that particular one. And the article has a clear history of attempts to pimp it up to create an impression of notability that isn't there. mathrick (talk) 07:29, 25 February 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.