Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechEngage

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. The "keep" !votes did not manage to convince that SIGCOV is met. Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechEngage

[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)

A WP:REFBOMBed article about a non-notable tech news website. Most of the references are primary or non-independent (company website, Twitter, blogs and unreliable sites). The only source that comes close to providing significant independent coverage is a dubious newspaper clipping of an article in Honolulu Star-Bulletin which appears to have been republished in Austin-American Statesman and Santa Maria Times. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I writing in the right place for deletion discussion? Can you read my comments? Thanks Jinnahsequaid (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected editors, I am currently watching and managing this page. Added some more notable references from Newspapers like The News & Observer. TechEngage team helped the unemployed techies during the dot-com bubble and after 2 years on Wikipedia, it was nominated for deletion. I think it should be kept. The page is improved. Deleted useless references. Thanks Jinnahsequaid (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 2003 articles all seem to be the product of a single press release and can be regarded as churnalism. There's a lot of self-published material padding out the article. My 15 minute search reveals no independent reliable source SIGCOV. Would be willing to reconsider my !vote if genuine independent RS could be shown to exist.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Goldztajn, Please check this 2005 news on The News & Observer (Independent resources) covered by Staff reporter. This 17th March 2003 story, this 7th April 2003 story and this 2nd February 2003 story. All of this coverage from different newspapers refers to different conferences and events held by TechEngage. No doubt' the content matches as the only purpose of TechEngage at that time was to train unemployed IT staff. Actually, TechEngage holds weekly/monthly sessions to train unemployed IT workers during the dot-com bubble. Later the economy recovered and it again started in 2009 and 2010 during the credit crunch. It trained over 2500 undergraduates in most of its events. Many official university presses also covered it. Almost over 30 Big IT companies like Microsoft, SAS, and more partnered with it. I think you should reconsider its vote. --Jinnahsequaid (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment three stories from 18 years ago, all of which repeat the same information but from different locations, and one story from 2005. The SAS link doesn't work. The NCSU link is from 18 years ago and is repeating a press release. There's no body of sources showing ongoing, independent, in depth, multiyear coverage. A Google search reveals large numbers of organisations offering IT training courses for the unemployed in the USA, this organisation appears no different than the others. At present, all this seems to be is a website publishing tech-related information; again I can see no reason why this is different than thousands of others. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the SAS link. Here is the link using web archive. It's a 2010 link. However, there are 60+ Newspaper sources as well available on Newspapers.com however they need a subscription. Here are some notable tech sites ranked TechEngage as the top Tech News-site of the industry. Feedster, Detailed.com, Feedspot. All are notable tech magazines and have millions of readers. Further, this page is over 2 years old. It must be given at least a few months for improvements without deletion. It's 2004 and 2005 stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnahsequaid (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources in the article, here, and elsewhere should be inspected further carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Goldsztajn. Appears to be a run of the mill tech website.-KH-1 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Unless you have an indication they are not reliable then they are acceptable sources. A quick glance suggests the Bizjournals and Kinza articles are examples that support GNG. Everything else is irrelevant cruft for a deletion discussion. As an aside to the initiator, calling an article "refbombed" is poor etiquette and borderline bad faith when used in the start of an AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably point out that The Honolulu Star, Austin American Statesmen and The News and Observer articles are all written by the same author with almost identical content.-KH-1 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My two cents on this. This story by Megan Jones and this story by Jonathan B. Cox both are from different writers. In publication companies, mostly a topic is assigned to a staff writer who covers the story and provides the follow-ups. I agree with @Macktheknifeau. It should be kept. Best Regards Jinnahsequaid (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG clearly states: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." -KH-1 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are two years apart which is far enough distanced for me to consider them separate sources even if it were the same author, which they aren't as per Jinnah. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The News & Observer is listed as a former partner organisation to TechEngage. Since it's not independent of the subject, it should be discounted when considering SIGCOV. See WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Further comment As per KH-1, The News & Observer is listed as a partner organization to TechEngage. I mean how can we doubt the integrity of a news agency when its publication principles are clearly defined. Partner to their job board (clearly stated as "Partner to News & Observer Classified Advertising Department and TriangleJobs"), a classified magazine named Triangle, doesn't mean that anyone can influence the Editorial policy and staff of any news agency. Every news agency in the world has partners including NYTimes, but the partnerships are clearly disclosed and worked under Adverts or on classifieds pages. They can't influence reporting. Reporting is independent of classified listing partnerships. On further research, I found that TechEngage published their classified on The News & Observer in 2010. (But the quoted stories that back SIGCOV are from 2003-2005. So, if they used their advertorial space in 2010, it doesn't discount SIGCOV. I believe The News & Observer covered TechEngage in the early 2000s therefore, TechEngage again captured their audience's attention by using advertising space in 2010. Example: http://media2.newsobserver.com/advertising/pdf/August10Week2.pdf Triangle is a Job board of News & Observer classified department that published in the same State, North Carolina where TechEngage started. It's common to use the same states' job boards to advertise jobs (after years of reporting). But it can never influence the Editorial works of a News agency. It completely undermines the integrity of News agencies which in my opinion is very biased to say. ABCD can partner NYTimes classifieds by paying a small fee but can never influence the editorial pages of it. Therefore, it's not only vague to say that but clearly declares it an act of bad faith. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I likewise cannot find any additional independent, reliable sources covering this website in depth. The newspaper articles already in the article do not really meet the bar of significant to me, and could well be the product of press releases (although I cannot say this with any conviction), and the other sources are from the organisation itself. As others have said, this appears to be an entirely run of the mill technology blog. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:45, 28 March 2021 (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.