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. SoWhy 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (company)[edit]

Basecamp (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No Improvement from previous AfD. All sources, i mean all the sources are covered in Media are Press coverage. Routine coverage. There is nothing Significant about this Product to being an Encyclopedia Notable. Not even a single In-depth coverage. people popularity does not define it Wiki notable. Only purpose is to promote it nothing else. This is ridiculously promotional. Adding participants: Joe,  RasputinAXP , Ed , Mais oui! , Tijuana Brass, KillerChihuahua, SwisterTwister, DGG, K.e.coffman, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Light2021 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notability is marginal, with the only significant development being Ruby on rails, but it's quite tangential. Just a company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) participants: David Gerard (talk · contribs), Dhartung (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The company's former name was 37signals. See find sources template below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH per my WP:BEFORE source searches. See source examples below. Note that many of the book sources are paywalled, but I have included those that provide significant coverage in the preview pages. If some of the assessments herein regarding notability are based only upon the state of sourcing in the article, please refer to WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this can't reasonably be merged to Ruby on Rails, so keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Which policy basis is this on? SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'll requote what we:3 always said: We never accept materials from firsthand press releases or republishers, and the first 7 of the above offered are clear in either entire indiscriminate promotional guides or books for interested consumers or the thinly hidden signs. None of this would convince keeping as by policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy. WP:ORGIND applies here since it in fact says such primary-sourced coverage is still unacceptable and this is still the case for "Crain's Chicago Business" a locally based business company and Newsweek is equally indiscriminate with again hosting company-like information; next Business insider is consisting of given quotes by the company employee himself, as is The Register. Any close signs that it's informative is actually dampened when actually examining the closeness of each sentence hinting at either the publisher enticingly influenced by the company words or actually rearranging the company words themselves. Any of all is of course is enough for removal as hopeful coverage. As by WP:NOT, we are not an extension of the company website nor should we contain hints of it, case closed like we always have with it. TIME is actually a life story about the employees and its history which is equally embarrassing to label as independent coverage since the sentences are quite the opposite, "Founder and president Jason Fried, 33, decided early on that he didn't need to be....". Globe and Mail is clearly labeled in their hosted "PR business" section with the same methodology for it. "Basecamp for Beginners" is equally indiscriminate as it's a guide for how-to's, also violating our policies, as "Inbound Marketing" (with marketing advice"), "Teaching Yourself Basecamp". SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• N.b. I added this source to the list above after the above !vote was posted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis - Examining the source above shows the similar indiscriminate signs, since the publication itself is of special interests to such consumers, therefore cannot be guaranteed to not entice or invite primary-supplied information, and any suspicions of this is instantly enough to consider as such. In fact, considering the PC MAG itself contains "How to use it" is enough for policy WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, the same policy applied as before and today. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Light2021 and SwisterTwister. Cunard's proffered sources are sufficiently press-releasey to be evidence against independent notability - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am satisfied with the editorial element of the sources regardless of some similarities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per evidence of clear WP:GNG collected by North America, especially the Wired and PCMag articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage as examined above shows it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy) therefore cannot outweigh GNG which is only a "possibilities" suggestive guideline; I can't think of a case where we absolutely tossed aside policy in favor of a simple articles guideline. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I view the sources as discriminate. They are specifically about this company and its service.ˌ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, the sources are actually peacock press releases-like content, not actually independent and this is especially obvious considering they suspiciously share similarities to the company website pages. How would this get past as acceptable for policies? SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles of Basecamp (formerly known as 37Signals) in books like this extensive profile from a Crown Publishing Group-published book are not "peacock press releases-like content". Cunard (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book not only actually has the "Company" history life story which would violate WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo because we are not a company advertiser but it actually says "take a guided tour" in the book's summary thus guidebooks cannot be accepted. That it was published by a company means nothing if the 'contents themselves are promotional. Certainly an independent publisher would never casually happen to advertise the company as if it were the company website, only the company themselves would. From WP:ORGIND: "[Unacceptable]: Anything published by the company directly or indirectly or for the company". SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• By "are specifically about this company and its service", exactly yes and that's why it so closely similar to what's said in their press releases therefore making it un-independent if it's still primary-founded. By discriminate, coverage is supposed to be objective and not simply automatically positive as like their press releases. Because the sources are in fact Indiscriminate and we have a basic policy for such cases, they're unacceptable for Notability given "Coverage must be reliable and independent". SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in my view, the claim to notability isn't that Basecamp (the product) is notable, it's that the company is notable for its role in developing Ruby on Rails. They do talk about themselves a lot (and their posts tend to be on Hacker News), but there's very little coverage of their products. A merge to Ruby on Rails would require significant copy-editing of both articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is perhaps a little borderline--certainly some of the references are borderline--but it seems over the necessary bar. Cunard's refs andf some of NA's are acceptable for notability. I would have said Delete if it were significantly promotional. but it isn't. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 12 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.