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 keep. I'm sufficiently satisfied that there's compelling arguments to close this as a keep. After two relistings with minimal further input I fail to see such a consensus forming as to make it actionable to delete this article.
KaisaL (
talk)
01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course they are press releases. The way the system works is that corporate PR operators write pieces for publication in trade journals and lazy journalists publish them as they are. A symbiotic relationship.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC).reply
Nah, you're incorrect in this case. Here's one example: in this
TechCrunch article, the author, Kyle Russell, states (in part):
I personally found the TrackR most useful right inside my apartment, which is currently in a state of organized chaos. Everything looks like a mess, but it’s all in the right place. The problem with this mode of organization is that eventually you forget which bin holds that backup pair of headphones."
It's absurd to describe this source as though if the article was written by the company's marketing department and then the author simply added their name atop the article. This is obviously not the case; it's an independent article published by a reliable, independent source. It's also rather insulting to the authors of said articles to mischaracterize their work in this manner. It seems that you've already made up your mind, though, regardless of the actual reality of the matter. It comes across that you may not have even bothered to actually read the articles I posted herein. Oh well. North America100002:18, 11 June 2016 (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.
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 keep. I'm sufficiently satisfied that there's compelling arguments to close this as a keep. After two relistings with minimal further input I fail to see such a consensus forming as to make it actionable to delete this article.
KaisaL (
talk)
01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course they are press releases. The way the system works is that corporate PR operators write pieces for publication in trade journals and lazy journalists publish them as they are. A symbiotic relationship.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC).reply
Nah, you're incorrect in this case. Here's one example: in this
TechCrunch article, the author, Kyle Russell, states (in part):
I personally found the TrackR most useful right inside my apartment, which is currently in a state of organized chaos. Everything looks like a mess, but it’s all in the right place. The problem with this mode of organization is that eventually you forget which bin holds that backup pair of headphones."
It's absurd to describe this source as though if the article was written by the company's marketing department and then the author simply added their name atop the article. This is obviously not the case; it's an independent article published by a reliable, independent source. It's also rather insulting to the authors of said articles to mischaracterize their work in this manner. It seems that you've already made up your mind, though, regardless of the actual reality of the matter. It comes across that you may not have even bothered to actually read the articles I posted herein. Oh well. North America100002:18, 11 June 2016 (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.