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 speedy delete. I'm closing this early as speedy delete for being promotional , with the added factor of violation of the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundr[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are primarily HuffPo blog posts which have questionable status as a reliable source. Except for the single Forbes article, the remaining sources appear to be other startups with blogs operating a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" scheme of SEO optimization. No real notability established by a reputable source other than the single Forbes article. v/r - T P 01:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate - 02:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate - 02:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate - 02:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:Noam Javits (reason: Article creator). —Paleo Neonate - 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially turning Wikipedia into a buy-my-book portal. WT:COI (permlink) has further substance from Tryptofish. — Bri (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP at the moment. The HuffPo and Forbes sources are all contributor written which lack editorial control and are therefore not RS in our eyes. Many of us are aware that these pieces are easily bought via freelancing sites in an attempt to confer notability here, thus they can't truly be independent either. The Business Standard article is ok but it is brief and more about the founder than the actual magazine. Even if it were about the company, a single source is not enough. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG by a country mile. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So long as it discloses the article was started by a paid editor, the subject itself is potentially noteworthy. There's potentially a million readers of this magazine/site that could use Wikipedia as an independent reviewer. Samw (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever that vote is saying Wikipedia is, I'm pretty sure it is not. If you think it is potentially noteworthy that's not quite cutting it. You need to show us how it is noteworthy, in order to meet one of the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NBOOK. - Bri (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Samw I'm not concerned with whether this article was or was not created by a paid editor. I've a long record of advocating deletion of marginal corporate articles, and this happens to be one of them. I know it's been alleged, but I don't care. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've examined every source cited on the page (including the two from Huff Post and the one from Forbes), and every single one is either a mirroring of a press release from the company, or a transcript or summary of an interview with the company founder. (The Forbes source is such an interview.) And reading them one after another, there is an odd repetitiveness, with each saying very similar things, that always trace back to material released by the company. I've also run multiple searches on various platforms for other sources, and found nothing more of any significance (including a lot of false returns for misspellings of "founder"). I'm just not seeing independent interest at the level that we need here (although I suspect that there probably will be sometime in the future). And to reply to the one "keep" comment above, Wikipedia obviously does not "review" companies. So this is a clear "delete" for me on notability grounds. Please indulge me one more thing: I know full well that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid argument – but the origin of the page is described here, and I don't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Managed to add some more notable references such as Forbes to the article. Should have the minimum at least needed now. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At least one of those was written by Foundr/Chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the article written by Chan, you added one self-published Huffpost blog post, two self-published Forbes.com blog posts by the same author, and an article in a non-notable website. Neither meets the requirements of CORP and GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even without the proof of undisclosed paid editing, the article is not notable. Maybe wait a few years, but I doubt we'll ever find out if it goes bankrupt. Internet magazine startups are a dime a dozen. It does have some Huff Post refs - but we know that their blog posts are not reliable. I'm starting to think Forbes is pretty much the same. Do they still call it "The capitalist's tool"? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Actually Forbes.com blog posts are also self-published and are in the same class as HuffPost. Note the disclaimer indicating that they are the opinion of the contributor. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all that's been said above, sources clearly come from press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not established, per available sources. Article exists for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for reasons already listed. Entrepreneur.com article [1] cites this company as having payed for promotion. The first sentence of the ==history== section is blatantly written as a pro-company narrative. Delete with extreme prejudice. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Forbes" ref clarifies by saying "Forbes BrandVoice® allows marketers to connect directly with the Forbes audience by enabling them to create content – and participate in the conversation – on the Forbes digital publishing platform. Each BrandVoice is produced by the marketer. Learn more about BrandVoice, or contact us at brandvoice.com. Opinions expressed by Forbes BrandVoice Contributors are their own." but the editor states it is from Forbes... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (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.