Talk:Mozio

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... http://www.google.com/search?q=Mozio receives about 250,000 hits on Google. Is this too insignificant? Also, the company has clearly been featured on TechCrunch, the Huffington Post, The Daily Californian, VentureBeat, and Mashable. All of these are legitimate 3rd party sources of information. No original research exists. However, it would be helpful if somebody could edit the page to add more data from all these official sources. Also, references need to be cited in the proper manner (footnotes), which is on the to-do list. However, since the article is a newly born stub, it is not 100% clear to me why this must all be completed in the blink of an eye. Mozio happens to be a real company with a real budget, as well as real investments. Its owners make enough money to pay for their own living and for all their full-time employees. It is not a withering startup created by university students, or a fake organisation invented by Facebook visitors. If there is a good reason why Mozio's article should definitely be deleted, please provide an explanation why. Because I am a Wikipedia novice, it would be helpful information. I would prefer it if the explanation were a paragraph or a link, rather than a sentence consisting mainly of "please do your own research on Wikipedia's Policies." -- Carrot Lord (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability Concerns

From WP:Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

I would like to argue against speedy deletion because of the above quote from WP:Notability.

1. Mozio does have over twelve reliable and trusted references along with numerous other 3rd party sources that talk about it. (on the Internet, and in physical publications)
2. It is not necessary to do any original research in order to write the article for Mozio.
3. It is unfair to expect citations and references to pop up immediately when a stub is created. Isn't it?

-- Carrot Lord (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Numerous Reliable 3rd Party Sources Exist

Interview with David Litwak, Mozio Founder on The Daily Californian
Mozio Article on the Huffington Post
Mozio Article on TechCrunch
Mozio Article on VentureBeat
Mozio Article on Mashable
Mozio Article on SiloBreaker
Mozio Article on Tnooz

Notice that the above articles all talk about Mozio. Famous publishers include the Huffington Post and much more. This is not a complete list. -- Carrot Lord (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional references have been added to the article page. -- Carrot Lord (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

About WP:SPEEDY

From WP:SPEEDY: It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion. Therefore this article should not be speedily deleted.

-- Carrot Lord (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

COI

Carrot Lord, the creator of this article, mentions on his userpage that he works for Mozio. Since he's the primary author of the article and some parts of the article look like puffery or at least original research, I have gone ahead and added a COI tag to the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do research on the original research. This page contains 0 original research. I have written it in the most NPOV way possible. Because it is written in Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View already, even though I am partly associated with Mozio, this is not relevant. The point of COI is to remove Non-neutral points of view. This article is basically neutral already. I will be removing the COI tag because NPOV is already supported. If you do not believe me, put back the COI tag, then edit the article to add more data and fix the POV issues, and then remove it yourself later. I will not remove it a second time. Probably not. Carrot Lord (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will look over the article as I have time and fix the problems that I see. Once I have done so, I'll remove the COI tag. Please do not remove the COI tag yourself again; removing COI tags that are about you is considered bad form. To highlight one instance of original research currently in the article, the sentence "Google Maps and Kayak are two services that could be used in place of Mozio" currently has no citations. I would grant that it is probably a true sentence, but all information on Wikipedia must be citable to a published reliable source. Without a reliable source that says as much, it falls afoul of WP:NOR and also fails to establish its encyclopedic relevance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Some source analysis, copied from the thread on my page: Glancing through the sources in the article, Mashable, Crunchbase, GigaOM, KillerStartups, Silobreaker, the IT Chronicle, Tnooz, and Skift are all probably not appropriate sources. The Huffington Post article could be appropriate for factual information, but it's written by David Litwak himself, which means that it's not a secondary source and thus doesn't count towards notability. The Daily Cal article is similarly not a secondary source, and wouldn't count very much towards notability even if it was, since it's a college paper writing about an alumni. Most of the remaining sources in the article are from Mozio itself. The TechCrunch and Venturebeat sources are usable, but not sufficient to establish notability by themselves. So, the article has some pretty severe sourcing problems and fails to clearly establish notability. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mozio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202050006/http://news.silobreaker.com/mozio-guides-travelers-the-final-mile-from-runway-to-driveway-5_2266066466547695616 to http://news.silobreaker.com/mozio-guides-travelers-the-final-mile-from-runway-to-driveway-5_2266066466547695616

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)