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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wevorce[edit]

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

There would seem to be media coverage, but the company is tiny and the article somewhat promotional. The only people who would care about their fees and success rate are prospective clients, not readers of an encyclopedia. Looking at the coverage in detail: Ref 2 is the best, but it's based almost entirely on what the company founder says, and seems to be written by a member of the Forbes staff specializing in "Entrepreneurship. By women, of women, for women. " Ref 3 is about a number of YC's projects, not just this firm. ref 3 is another interviews based on whatever the founder says; and so is ref 5, and the un-numbered ones newly added.

There is a general question here: we need to decide what to do about the many very small start up companies that get funding from microfinancing sites and crowd-funding sites. Just a few years ago they would have been privately financed, and nobody would have noticed them. Currently they get rather extensive coverage, presumably based on PR efforts and their greater visibility. I think using the GNG is this sort of situation is capable of destroying the legitimacy of WP coverage of business. Rather, we need some sort of minimum screen, such as we use in some other fields. At present the only way to deal with the GNG to to try to pick apart the sourcing, as I have attempted above..I don;t really think that's the best way to discriminate. And, as has been pointed out before, almost all media coverage of commercial enterprises is driven to some extent by PR. Should we then abandon the field? (my own suggestion for a screen has been NYSE listing or the equivalent, admittedly a very high barrier & useless for private companies). Personally, I think the GNG no longer makes the sense it did ten years ago--it biases WP to thw world of the last fewyears. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG certainly does led to some recent-ism, but getting covered by forbes, BBC etc is going to be somewhat close to the "gold standard". weak keep as this article is not the place to rewrite GNG. We follow the sources - if the sources lead to a rabbit hole of fluff, unfortunately thats where we go. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try delete. The article seems to meet the GNG criteria so, as advised, I shall presume notability. Despite that, I think the topic is at present not sufficiently notable to justify a WP article. Note: I reserve the right to !vote keep for topics failing the criteria – indeed I do so when I feel very brave, and sometimes people agree with me (no diffs in case troops with assault weapons revisit those articles). Thincat (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH quite comfortably:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree it technically passes the GNG. My argument is that we should delete it none the less, because it does not have any significance, as can be seen from actually reading the references. Even in its current wording, the GNG is explicitly not a promise to include every product that meets it. Put another way, I am saying that the material in the articles does not show suitability for an encyclopedia, under the basic policy of NOT DIRECTORY, and the principle underlying NOT NEWS, which is more important than the guideline that is supposed to implement these. WP:N. We accept it for news events and for people; I am suggesting we implement it for businesses also. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With coverage in Forbes, The New York Times, BBC News and The Wall Street Journal, I'm retaining my keep !vote above; also per WP:NTEMP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Re-written press releases, blurbs, and third-party sites that just re-post company produced material (or analyst reports that are paid for) I do not believe meet the GNG standard, because GNG says the sources must be independent. However, when journalists write actual articles and there is speculation/paranoia that PR had some corrupting influence on the publication's editorial that makes it no longer independent, that seems like a bias in the sources argument and a contradiction of our core principles. We just repeat what the sources say. This argument that PR influence disqualifies otherwise independent sources would virtually prohibit us from covering companies at all, being that even critical press articles are usually prompted by the PR team of the company's critics. CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although our !votes are at odds, I agree with quite a bit of that. The article is transparently an advertisement – it is not trying to deceive anyone and no one will be deceived. What is surprising is that, despite the time and effort that has been put in to setting up all this chain of re-reporting, the article seems to have the modest ambition of generating the caché of a presence on Wikipedia. A straightforward change (left as an exercise for the reader) would make it far more effective as an ad (and coincidentally the article would become more encyclopedic). Thincat (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused, both because the term "the article" is ambiguous (a source or the Wikipedia page?) and because of the statement that a change to the article, done by the reader, would make it an ad, which would also make it more encyclopedic? Maybe it is too early in the morning for me ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and sorry to wake you up so early! Both times I used "article" I meant this Wikipedia article. Yes, a reader would not change it but an editor might. A change wouldn't make this "article" into an ad (it is one already) but it could make it a far better ad and a somewhat better article in WP terms. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with comments above that GNG tends to increase systematic bias towards the recent past. My prefered solution at this time, however, is to relax GNG in its application to historical topics. James500 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of whoever ends up closing this, could you clarify your position? It's unclear from what you wrote if you are arguing to keep or to delete this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it passes the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as everyone here accepts that it does, then personal views about the importance (or otherwise) of the organisation are of no relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and summarises what reliable sources have chosen to report on. Multiple reliable sources have chosen to report on this organisation in detail. Anything else is Wikipedia:I don't like it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources say it's a company involved in alternative dispute resolution, and a financial success at Y Combinator. Since you can't redirect to both of those, it has to be kept as an independent article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom's concerns are quite valid, but that is for a broader discussion. Article currently meets the generally-accepted GNG in its current state, so this article, no matter how I feel about how "notable" it really is, should not be deleted. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (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.