Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermont Information Processing

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Information Processing

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Vermont. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just from a quick google, there seems to be plenty of reporting about the company. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not routine news: [1]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a Google search and found some good articles, so it's a keep for me based on 1 and 2.Royal88888 (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users have said that Google shows many good sources. Are they being used in the article? Is this about deleting or keeping the current article or the article as it might be rewritten? -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will examine the sources either today or tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove promotional intro. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A poor attempt has been made to update the article. Lets look at the references in the first two blocks. It should prove notability per WP:NCORP if the references are there:

Ref 1 [2] This is 404
Ref 2 [3] An IBM doc for a system. Non-RS
Ref 3 [4] Ad for MSI 66. Non-rs
Ref 4 [5] Truckers got connected. Doesn't mention them. Would fail WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [6] VIP landing page. Non-rs.
Ref 6 [7] Another VIP page. Non-rs.
Ref 7 [8] 404
Ref 8 [9] G Maps entry. Non-rs
Ref 9 [10] Case report. Non-RS.

Looking at the 9 references, not a single one pass WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. In fact most of them seem to be non-rs. I've seen a couple of keep !votes. Looking at the first one, where an attempt at WP:THREE was made:

Ref 1 [11] Ultra-local newspaper that both fails WP:AUD and more fails WP:ORGIND as its a PR piece that involved the whole staff. It is not independent.
Ref 2 [12] Non-rs. Fails WP:AUD and WP:SIRS. WP:PRIMARY. It is not independent.

These two references are junk. The last keep !vote is a drive-by editor with no interest in examining the source. This article fails WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care if the article is kept or not, but I will chime in that Vermont Public is the statewide PBS and NPR station, and I'd say it's not fair to say that it fails the AUD and SIRS criteria. I'd also say Vermont Business Magazine being the largest business magazine in a state meets the AUD criteria as described, Statewide is described as a sufficient audience for AUD. Dark centauri (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also https://vtdigger.org/2023/08/02/national-labor-relations-board-orders-colchester-software-company-to-reinstate-4-employees/ is a statewide news publication with a large audience. Dark centauri (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has just arrived. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An infrequent editor, but their first edit was almost five years ago. Do you have any reply to the substance of the comments? FWIW, I had the same thought about Vermont Public. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is either WP:COI editor or a UPE or both. He has made exactly 9 edits, 4 of them have been to the article or the Afd. Per policy, any editor who a WP:COI must declare, which includes declaring here as well. I no time for games for people who are not here for Wikipedia and have they're own seperate agenda. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live and work in the area, saw the news article, checked the page, I have never worked or been associated with Vermont Information Processing.

But like I said before I'm not debating the article being up, I just think you are incorrect to called those insufficient sources from an AUD standpoint. Dark centauri (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to be clear am I affiliated with Vermont Public, or Vermont Business Magazine. Dark centauri (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, can you provide any substantial response instead of tossing out unsupported accusations? -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark centauri: What news article did you see? scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The initial article that brought me to this Wikipedia page was the vtdigger article on 08/02. This was my initial edit to the page to include that article after I had read it. Special:Contributions/69.5.127.66 I forgot to log in when making the edit. Dark centauri (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Also in reading the WP:SPA link, accusing me of WP:COI and WP:UPE is a bit WP:DNB. Considering my two edits to this page was to include a news article I read and then change the organization for that single article. Then my participation here was just to clear up that I thought Vermont Public had a sufficient enough WP:AUD not to be excluded on that alone. Dark centauri (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. And I want to see an end to this sniping at other editors. If someone makes a valid argument, it doesn't matter whether they are a SPA or not. And being a SPA doesn't mean someone has a COI, it's just that they have a specific interest in a subject. Don't try to undermine other editors by making unfounded accusations, focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Going to comment on the specific sources mentioned above:

This in Vermont Biz is an article on the topic company celebrating their 50th year in operation. But it is based *entirely* on an interview with their Operations Director Louise Morgan and another employee Heather Burnett who provides a detailed "history" and list of highlights. It then interviews some of their clients who also provide quotes. It is a "puff profile" which is a form of stealth marketing. There isn't a single bit of "Independent Content" that meets ORGIND criteria. In some ways it is similar to an article published in Tech Issue in October 2019 which is based on an interview with Human Resources assistant Stephanie Slocum and the company president Dan Byrnes and Director of strategy and supplier sales Rau Rouleau as well as testimonials from customers. Lots of the same history and stories but also fails ORGIND.
This on the Invest Ottawa website is a blog post. As per WP:RS blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources. The article was written by Invest Ottawa's Marketing and Communications strategist. It has no "Independent Content", it is another "puff profile" that closely follows the same format as the other articles above. Fails ORGIND.
Vermont Public announcement about a lawsuit is an example of "trivial coverage" as per CORPDEPTH and doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH

They sound like a lovely company but everything I can find relies entirely on information provided by people/companies/customers related to the topic company with no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: This subject does not quite meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as it stands. They were involved in a different lawsuit [[13]] and ran a daycare center [[14]]. User:Let'srun 11:43, 17 August 2023 (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.