The result was no consensus. After three re-lists, there is still no sign of any consensus here, and both directions being advocated by established editors with reasonable arguments. No prejudice to a future re-listing at AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Everything here is either promotional or a trivial notice about funding. Interviews where the founder says what they want to are not reliable sources for notability or for anything else, except for what they (or their pr advisor) thinks will be effective. advertising for their enterprise.
See adjacent AfD for the article on the founder. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The article notes:
Cleaning: Helpling
Helpling mediates between private cleaners and private households via its website, with the cleaner being hired by the household. At the time of the analysis, Helpling charges a fee of 20 percent of the hourly rate (14.90 euro) for its service. Applicants for work as cleaners via Helpling are pre‐screened before being admitted to the platform, which includes an intake interview to discuss the individual's motivation, a CV, references and work experience, and a test of the applicant's understanding of what cleaning involves. The prospective cleaner also has to submit a Certificate of Good Conduct (interview Helpling). The platform uses a rating system regarding the quality, reliability, and sociability of the cleaner.
The public debate concerning the cleaning platform Helpling concentrates on the social protection and the remuneration of the task provider. The current regulatory framework regarding cleaning in the home, the Home Services Regulation (HSR), was drawn up in January 2007 to protect the legal status of domestic cleaners. Working conditions include a safe and healthy workplace, minimum wage, and 8 percent holiday pay, paid annual leave and sick leave (for a maximum of 6 weeks). Cleaners are responsible for their own tax declaration. The HSR is not effective in practice, however, partly because private clients are not familiar with it. Instead, the large majority of Dutch household who rent cleaners, do so offline in the informal market and without any contract.6 Helpling applies the HSR as guideline (such as minimum wage including holiday pay) and also sends cleaners an annual statement of income which they can use to file their tax returns. An unknown share of cleaners may not pay tax, knowing that Helpling will not disclose their personal details and income to the tax authorities. This links to the public interest of fair competition. One can argue that Helpling is competing unfairly with regular cleaning companies, because few cleaners on their platform pay taxes and often have no social security (interview OSB).
Interestingly, in the public debate about Helpling there is little focus on the question of whether Helpling is not in fact an employer or a temp agency. The platform makes use of clients' reviews and in this way indirectly conducts continual quality checks on cleaners. Repeatedly poor performance reviews result in a talk and, ultimately, a cleaner may be denied access to the platform. Helpling also sets the hourly rate for a cleaning task. All this leads to a dependency relationship between platform and cleaner, with many cleaners acquiring a large proportion of their income through Helpling. To avoid being considered as an employer, Helpling performs no quality checks and deliberately does not give cleaners any instructions. Cleaners are also free to choose where and when they offer their services. More recently, Helpling changed its pricing policy, allowing cleaners to set their own price.
This article has the same authors as the first source.
The article notes:
The article notes:This chapter considers the case of Helpling, a digital platform for domestic cleaning services. The key public interest addressed in this case study is the occupational status and legal position of the cleaner. The chapter starts with an introduction to Helpling. The existing cleaning market and how public interests are safeguarded in it are described in section 4.2, where we show that the legislative and regulatory framework for the sector has been under discussion for some time. Section 4.3 reviews the legal position of the domestic cleaner and the status of Helpling. Should Helpling be seen as an intermediary or an employer? And how can the legal position of domestic cleaners be safeguarded? The chapter concludes with an overview of the issues relating to public interests in the domestic cleaning market and the possibilities for strengthening the safeguards.
Helpling is a newcomer in the cleaning industry. The digital platform was founded in Germany in 2014 and operates in the domestic cleaning market. Helpling's founder secured an investment from Rocket Internet26 and shortly afterwards expanded the business into other countries, including the Netherlands.
The article notes:
Teddle is a previous name of Helpling.Teddle began last April as a marketplace in which any demand could be listed, from clearing wisteria to teaching piano lessons. For co-founder Alex Depledge, it was a way to use the internet to make even the tiniest of local businesses accessible.
But Teddle, and other sharing economy businesses like it in the UK, are finding that their grand vision of a virtual labour market in which micro-entrepreneurs can strike a series of small deals is turning out to be depressingly akin to running a temping agency.
The London-based start-up was forced to make the first big shift in its business model when it found that searches for just one service – cleaning – outnumbered all others by a four to one ratio.
Cunard (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that the journal article and the report provide significant coverage about Helpling. The two journal article and the report contain different material about the company so I consider them to be sufficiently different to be separate sources. There is no requirement for Helpling to be considered "the most important" of the five examples discussed."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources with quotes
|
|---|
|
Summary of sources
Sandra Pfister, who works in public broadcasting station Deutschlandfunk Nova's economics department, said in the Hielscher or Haase radio program, "Cleaning ladies who work at Helpling have no fixed income, no protection against dismissal, no paid leave" and noted that there was significant uncertainty over whether Helpling customers could get a tax return from the Helpling bill based on the Income Tax Act.
Thorsten Mumme wrote in Der Tagesspiegel, a German daily newspaper, that "Helpling was not free from difficulties" in that it had to lay off 20% of its employees in 2015 and its investor Rocket Internet reduced its value by more than 12 million. The article provides further analysis by saying the company could not do further business with only private cleaning, so it began to do other household services including making furniture and moving people's belongings.
Stephan Dörner wrote in the national German newspaper Die Welt that "you should not expect the professionalism of a cleaning company from the low-cost suppliers. Anyone ordering a helpling in Berlin must also be prepared to communicate in English only."
Katharina White in Berliner Morgenpost provides critical analysis of the company, writing, "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling."
Cunard (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
All of the sources I provided "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail"."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
For two articles that are only about Helpling and contain no information about any other company, see this article from Deutschlandfunk Nova and this article from Berliner Morgenpost.
The Berliner Morgenpost article is not "regurgitating material from the companý's press kit". It includes quotes from an interview with the company's founder but it also has critical analysis of the company. It says "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling." It includes other critical analysis such as "For some, Franke [founder of Helpling" is a posterboy of the privileged neo-liberals, for others a mastermind who fights the black market and advocates more self-determination for solo self-employed in the low paid sector." The article further notes that the cleaning service is cheap but not everything goes to the cleaner who has several fees they must pay Helpling.
To say categorically that "Five pieces in a period of four years cannot constitute significant coverage" has no basis in the notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)