Talk:Unbabel

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I have amended it with numerous highly credible sources representing the significance of the business entity. --Drakeballew (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is written objectively and has been edited to remove any promotional content. --Drakeballew (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion #2

Hi guys, I've reworked the page entirely to make it as objective as possible. I've based my edits on another translation service provider's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDL_plc). Can you please provide feedback on ways to improve? Thank you! --Drakeballew (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Jorm:, @Joseph2302:, I've declined the speedy since Drakeballew has edited the page to remove the promotional content and at this point it isn't promotional enough to where it'd really qualify for a speedy. It also wouldn't qualify as a speedy as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD because it never went through a full AfD- it was speedied as an A7 before the AfD could really even begin. I wouldn't recommend trying to speedy this as an A7 since the sourcing in the article asserts enough notability to where speedy criteria would not apply here. Since there are no other speedy criteria that would apply, AfD is the only other option here if either of you wanted to take this further. I would, however, recommend that you both first try to work with Drake to see if there is enough coverage to where this company would pass WP:NCORP. Offhand I don't have any true opinion on notability, but I will say that the sourcing on the article needs to be improved. Here's a rundown of the sources:

1. Huffington Post. The HuffPo is somewhat depreciated on Wikipedia and many consider it to be a glorified blog. Sometimes articles can be used if they're written by a staff member, but in this case the article looks to be written by a development/marketing company. On top of that the source only briefly mentions Unbabel, which makes it a WP:TRIVIAL source. Trivial sources cannot establish notability regardless of where it is posted unless the brief mention is about something extremely major, like the company winning a major award akin to the Nobel Prize.
2. Tech Crunch. This site is generally considered to be usable but be careful- they do tend to base their news stories heavily on press releases and in some cases, are affiliated with their subjects or have writers that are affiliated. Offhand this looks to be usable since it's by a staff writer.
3. Tech Crunch. This looks to be usable enough for the most part, although I was unable to really verify anything about the writer.
4. Venture Beat. Site has an editorial staff, so looks to be usable enough.
5. Press release. This is a press release that was posted to Yahoo. No matter who publishes these, press releases will always be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources. Primary sources will be anything that is released by the company or anyone affiliated with them and cannot show notability regardless of what they claim or where they are posted.
6. Matter Mark. This looks to be unusable for several reasons. The first is that Matter Mark is ultimately trying to sell the reader something and advertises to companies that they can help them make good decisions. This poses a problem since we have no way of knowing if Unbabel is one of their clients or not- if they are, they'd definitely have a vested interest in positively portraying the company. In other words, a conflict of interest. The second issue is that the site doesn't really seem to have any editorial oversight that can be verified and is essentially a WP:SPS.
7. Bloomberg. This is a routine listing on a company database and as such, is at best a primary or trivial source. It's expected that a company will be listed somewhere.

This has some decent sources but it'll need more if either of the two editors decides to take it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79:, @Jorm:, @Joseph2302: -- Thanks for the feedback! Would best practice be to remove the less reliable sources (Mattermark, press release, HuffPo) completely or to move them to external links/further reading? Let me know. In the meantime, I will work on finding other higher quality sources. Thanks again. Drakeballew (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79:, @Jorm:, @Joseph2302: -- Also, what is the best practice for citing sources that are written in foreign languages? Thanks! Drakeballew (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Drakeballew: You can use foreign language sources- just list them like you would any other source. It's preferred that after you list the article title in its original language that you provide an English language translation of the title, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79: Thank you! I've updated the references. Please keep me informed of any further ways that I can improve the article! Drakeballew (talk)