Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GovExec

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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 15:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GovExec

[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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. That's all there is to say here, really. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A leader in its market niche whose innovative strategy, acquisitions, and rebranding have been covered by such diverse, influential, and WP-notable publications as Adweek, Politico, Axios, Business Insider, the New York Post, the Tallahassee Democrat, and Technical.ly (to list just the pubs cited in the week-and-a-half that this page has existed) satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. PRRfan (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A leader in a niche is probably not notable as per WP:NCORP, but that aside the sources are problematic - Forbes sites are not RS and a lot of this other coverage is routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address your RS concern, I've removed the Forbes/sites link as a citation from the body of the article. (Both passages it supported are also supported by at least one other RS source.) I've moved the link to "External links" because its author Tony Silber is a journalist of long standing and his take on the company will likely be of interest to readers. PRRfan (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see WP:GNG as satisfied by the sources provided. This goes well beyond routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to one of those references which goes "well beyond" routine funding/acquisition news and announcements? Especially with WP:ORGIND and "Independent Content" in mind. I'm not seeing it. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's Axios assessing and asserting the company's significance in its market: "Prior to GovExec, there hasn't been one media company that has tried to bundle all of the content and services that serve public-sector officials in one place." That is Axios' reporting, not company officials talking.^[1]
• Here's Business Insider assessing the company's importance as business-to-business media, which "has been a bright spot in an industry that struggled during the pandemic, leading to layoffs and furloughs across the media world." The article explores the company's history, distinguishes it from other media companies, compares it to market competitors, presents assessments by outside business analysts, etc.^[2] PRRfan (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The Axios reference does indeed contain a small amount of in-depth "Independent Content" and although is pretty small and light-weight there's an argument to be made that once you exclude stuff that fails ORGIND, there's enough to meet CORPDEPTH and therefore NCORP. But the Business Insider reference does not. The sentence you've extracted is a general comment about "B2B media" - in fact you omitted that from the beginning of the extract. There's nothing in that article that can be said to be in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't omit "B2B media"; I literally spelled out the abbreviation to make things clearer. The point is that the article reports that GovExec is notable, in part, because it and similar companies have bucked a general trend. This is explicitly asserted in the piece's first two sentences, and backed up by the rest of the article. PRRfan (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for me the way your sentence is written is ambiguous. It isn't clear that the extracted quote is actually referring to the general B2B marketplace. But I disagree that the article reports that GovExec is notable. Nowhere is that stated and interpretations that are not WP:V are potentially WP:OR. For me, based on reading the article and the style of writing, my opinion is there is no in-depth "Independent Content" in the article. The comments that aren't directly attributed to an exec or an announcement or filing are, for me, either comments about a general marketplace and not made relevant to this topic company or simple summaries or positioning so that the next quote or sentence attributed to the company is in better context and easier to understand. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It is certainly true that the article does not say "GovExec is notable", a bar that would consign a lot of other companies' pages to deletion. Yet it's hardly an "interpretation" to note that the perfectly RS Business Insider published this article because it deemed the company notable, and for at least two reasons that the piece explicitly asserts and then explores: first, that it is among the rare private-equity-backed media companies that are growing, not shrinking; and second, that it is among the rare media companies that grew, not shrank, during the pandemic. Does the article quote company officials? Sure. Does it put those quotes in a larger context? Yes. (Does it quote an unnamed employee about lingering fears? Yep.) PRRfan (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic of published this article because it deemed the company notable, every article ever published confers notability. I think this company is unusual, they appear to be an important part of the US Government's channel for communication and therefore are involved with a lot of announcements - but nobody seems to have written a lot *about* them. If we could get another article similar to the Axios piece I'd consider changing my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that any article which features a quote or statement from a company isn't independent coverage. Do I understand you correctly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that ORGIND says articles must contain "Independent Content". Usually that's easy to spot because the journalist will not pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company. I assume every article is from a respectable third party publisher but that's not enough, the content must also be intellectually independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the standard that WP:ORGIND lays out for Independent Content... "pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company" is OK as long as there is also "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." which you're clearly saying there is in every other paragraph. This doesn't appear to meet any of the "Examples of dependent coverage" at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll stop this here. I've said all I have to say on this topic. Your various interpretations of NCORP are bizarre and I'll leave it to the closing admin to make whatever determination they see fit. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're using Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this passes WP:GNG so its GNG you need to address. If GNG is satisfied the supplemental standard is irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're following WP:N guidelines (which contains the GNG section) then you will also see WP:SNG (the very next section) which explicitly refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. The consensus is that unless there are very good reasons to make an exception, we use WP:SNG guidelines to assess a topic against the appropriate category guidelines - so for companies, that's WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNG can not override a GNG pass, it can only override a GNG fail. Also note that when I read WP:ORGIND I fail to find anything which supports your unique and esoteric interpretation of "Independent Content." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are unfortunately mistaken. The point of the NCORP guidelines is to clarify that there's a higher bar for inclusion of articles about organizations because of the large incentives to write about non-notable companies both in press and in Wikipedia. It's right there in WP:ORGCRIT! FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The references are all based entirely on company announcements - every single references either says that the information was told by an executive (or an executive of one of their acquisitions) or that the company "announced" the news with the remainder being mere mentions-in-passing. Nothing here comes close to meeting ORGIND, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true: "The references are all based entirely on company announcements"; see previous reply. PRRfan (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I believe that you are mistaken... We only look at WP:NCORP after evaluating WP:GNG and GNG is met. Also thats not even a correct interpretation of WP:NCORP as PRRfan has informed you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an explanation above in any case. I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per cited references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. John Yunshire (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NCORP and WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (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.

[1]

[2]