263:- This UnitesUs article I believe does meet the notability guideline in section WP:CORP, specifically the section stating, “The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.” New York Times, Fox News, and The Economist are reliable independent sources. Moreover, found within the Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies), under the Primary Criteria section, it mentions “If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.”, which again, the UnitesUs article has adhered to, listing at least 5 sources. Under this section, to make up for “trivial coverage”, the article has to list multiple independent sources which should be cited to establish notability, which in fact the UnitesUs article carries out. Lastly, as for the “spammy corporatese” statement, the UnitesUs article was written in the same manner in which the CareerBuilder AND Yahoo! HotJobs Knowledge articles were written.
371:
Yup. Obviously if the subject wasn't notable, no other source would publish the information. Common sense goes a long way. Moreover, the UnitesUs article adheres to the 4 cardinal policies governing the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four
296:
Regardless of how you interpret the rules of
Knowledge, based on what is stated on Knowledge’s Notability (organizations and companies) article, this article adheres to what Knowledge states as acceptable... despite it being “tangential” coverage in your eyes. There are multiple sources listed from
281:
Three sources plus the same dead link used twice, actually. But 5, 10, or 25 sources would not meet the notability criterion if they were the same quality as the ones currently used in the article. There are two key problems with them is it pertains to assessing notability: they are not independent
203:. The spammy corporatese could be eliminated with a rewrite, but sourced to what? Existing sources are not intellectually independent of the subject, but still are trivial and tangential in their coverage. I was unable to find anything better online.
338:
article that you reference states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". These sources used in the UnitesUs article are newspaper articles.
481:
The references are clearly incidental mentions, not references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I would consider this almost an A7 speedy.
333:
I don't think you understand that the sources were not published by IBM, which UnitesUs is affiliated with, but by third party, credible sources such as CNBC, New York Times and The
Economist. Moreover, the
168:
372:
policies are allowed in the main namespace:(Knowledge:Neutral point of view, Knowledge:Verifiability, Knowledge:No original research) and the copyright policy (Knowledge:Copyrights).
121:
282:
of the subject due to the financial connection, and they are trivial in nature (all tangentially covering the subject with the same three-sentence press release summary).
311:
Again, the sources are trivial and not independent of the topic. Sources would need to be presented that address both issues to demonstrate notability as discussed at
240:
220:
162:
60:
357:. Pasting in more sources that do the same does nothing to establish notability, because of the lack of both depth and intellectual independence.
128:
17:
56:
94:
89:
183:
248:
228:
98:
150:
452:
423:
512:
81:
40:
409:
52:
441:
244:
224:
144:
508:
36:
140:
493:
471:
443:
414:
404:
381:
373:
366:
348:
340:
328:
312:
306:
298:
291:
272:
264:
252:
232:
212:
176:
85:
63:
469:
377:
344:
302:
268:
353:
Nope. Every source presented either quotes or closely paraphrases the same three sentences from
190:
434:
77:
69:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
507:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
362:
335:
324:
316:
287:
208:
354:
200:
156:
489:
462:
115:
358:
320:
283:
204:
484:
501:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
455:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
426:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
403:
and draft & userfy until a better article can be made.
111:
107:
103:
175:
432:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
461:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
515:). No further edits should be made to this page.
241:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
221:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
189:
8:
239:Note: This debate has been included in the
219:Note: This debate has been included in the
238:
218:
199:Seems to fail the notability guideline at
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
297:reliable independent sources.
1:
494:07:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
472:18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
444:00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
415:07:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
382:06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
367:01:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
349:18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
329:04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
307:04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
64:10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
292:06:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
273:02:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
253:19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
233:19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
213:19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
532:
504:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
53:CambridgeBayWeather
355:this press release
474:
446:
255:
245:Shawn in Montreal
235:
225:Shawn in Montreal
523:
506:
467:
460:
458:
456:
437:
431:
429:
427:
412:
407:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
34:
531:
530:
526:
525:
524:
522:
521:
520:
519:
513:deletion review
502:
475:
463:
451:
449:
447:
435:
422:
420:
410:
405:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
529:
527:
518:
517:
497:
496:
459:
448:
430:
419:
418:
417:
406:SwisterTwister
401:Delete for now
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
276:
275:
257:
256:
236:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
57:Uqaqtuq (talk)
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
528:
516:
514:
510:
505:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
486:
480:
477:
476:
473:
470:
468:
466:
457:
454:
445:
442:
439:
438:
428:
425:
416:
413:
408:
402:
399:
398:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
337:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
58:
54:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
503:
500:
483:
478:
464:
450:
436:Juliancolton
433:
421:
400:
313:WP:CORPDEPTH
260:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
163:free images
61:Sunasuttuq
509:talk page
336:WP:ORGIND
317:WP:ORGIND
37:talk page
511:or in a
465:UY Scuti
453:Relisted
424:Relisted
374:TonyAbba
341:TonyAbba
299:TonyAbba
265:TonyAbba
122:View log
78:UnitesUs
70:UnitesUs
39:or in a
479:Delete.
201:WP:CORP
169:WPÂ refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
359:VQuakr
321:VQuakr
284:VQuakr
205:VQuakr
141:Google
99:delete
50:Delete
490:talk
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
411:talk
378:talk
363:talk
345:talk
325:talk
315:and
303:talk
288:talk
269:talk
261:Keep
249:talk
229:talk
209:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
485:DGG
191:TWL
120:– (
492:)
440:|
380:)
365:)
347:)
327:)
319:.
305:)
290:)
271:)
251:)
243:.
231:)
223:.
211:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
59:,
55:,
488:(
376:(
361:(
343:(
323:(
301:(
286:(
267:(
247:(
227:(
207:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.