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 no consensus. No consensus to delete (and close to consensus to keep but calling it "consensus to keep" wouldn't appropriately deflect the whole debate IMO).

This is clearly a case where different editors have different standards about company notability and inclusion vs. promotion, and both sides of the argument can be somewhat supported by different interpretations of the wording and/or spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH -- which is a problem with policy more than with the editors trying to work with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee[edit]

Honestbee (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)

Non-notable company till now. comparatively new and funded vy investors. Nothing significant but another startup company for grocery delivery. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company investment plans. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and essentially actually speedy material because it's all simply advertising the company, actually also going as far to then mention about the clientele methods, clearly PR, and the sources, no matter what they are and what about them, are all republished PR and that alone. None of this is substance, and for a company looking for PR at any and all costs, it's something we delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone; it does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of this is "corp depth" because the sources are laced with PR; take the first one, every single paragraph has quoted interviews, meaning that article was not entirely substantially independent so none of it can be taken as guaranteed as no PR, especially since the article is heavily an interview to begin with; the second then starts and contains several paragraphs of information about shopping, so it's not actually about the company, then it starts with interviewed information, which is not independent of course, every single sentence from there to the end is an interviewed quote, which is outstandingly outrageous because each part was thinned out to span several single-form sentences, instead of paragraphs, this shows how thin the article is, itself, that they attempted to make the "article" seem larger by thinning the sentences. The third source simply starts with trivial information about other matters until starting information about the company, and then eventually mentions the outrageous comment " it’s eager to prove it can deliver the goods", that means the company intentionally listed their own thoughts, and that's not independent of course, the next sentences all bounce between showing how the business works and how it can be used to then starting with heavy interviewed quotes, none of that is independent of course, because it's all coming from the company itself and only that; another example is "The company can also nudge shoppers towards picking time slots", the last few sentences show this themselves that the article was largely of course an interview because he never stops talking until the end, and even a footer at the end shows how he supplied information, that's not independent and it's not surprising to see. The fourth article is also still blatant with advert parts, such as the overspecific "On March 30, the grocer asked its users to “sink your teeth” into the meats supposedly from Explorer Joe Exotic Meats (the website is apparently fake) and place orders until March 31. It said deliveries would be made on April 1", which no would be as passionate about this than either the clients and investors, who want to make sure they're getting their partner packed with all of the company information; the next sentences weave between interviewed quotes before, going to the next one, which is not only an interview quote....but a requote of an interview quote from somewhere else, after a few other sentences of interviewed quotes with the man, it ends exactly there, showing there was no actual journalism since the man took all of the articlespace, hence no substantial or significant. The fifth article then advertises the facts of where and how you can buy from the company and it makes these messages clear....but not actually containing news, but instead grocery and task lists, literally! This sixth source is then simply announcing mere trivial coverage about what the company's business plans which, in this case, are about business overseas, but it's actually only a mere 6-paragraph (and they're thin, I'll note, hardly ever consisting of information past 2 or so sentences, so it's not actual substance), and then with this one article, you have a 20 to 50% of it simply republishing what the company says about itself, that's not substantial and it hell sure as is not if it's basically company-supplied information. The next and last source is still rather thin since it only talks about the "meat events" and the worst blatant part may actually be the fact it lists its costs, which may or may not have been a planned PR plan. Yes, although it's not a flashy PR piece like the others, what still stays is the fact it's still not actually substantial and significant, especially if it's as thin as simply a company controversy. About half of this last article is simply repeated company quotes as it is. All in all, there was not actual significant or substance, especially if it's simply republished company materials. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources listed above by North America demonstrate that company meets WP:GNG. WP:ALLBUSINESSCOVERAGEISPR is not yet a policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only interest Safehaven86 (talk) is to "keep" anything that is covered by any sort of media, and whatsoever they have written without analyzing the actual notability or significance for Encyclopedia material. I have been analyzing the keep vote mechanism for articles submitted for AfD. that is the reasons some of them are nominated various times, but for Vote for participation or comments, they had been restored. Still it does not make any of them encyclopedic genuine. thanks for giving your opinions. Light2021 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-trivial coverage from Forbes, TechCrunch, etc. Easily passes WP:GNG. Nominator appears to be using their own personal idea of what constitutes notability vs Wikipedia's policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not be replaced with Daily News paper or the blog-spot. Just something is covered once in a time in a notable news paper does not make anything Encyclopedia notable. Every articles that is covered by daily news will make this Wikipedia irrelevant and will lose all its credibility. Techcrunch and Forbes? Highly commercial so called news platform, that covers anything that can make money or either funded by huge investment? misuse of WP:GNG. Light2021 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how to respond to this, as it's utterly incoherent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jamie, and apologies if I was inappropriate to you. Light2021 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Keep comment above this one explicitly actually stated that there is not yet a policy about PR, yet we will have WP:NOT and its closely linked areas such as WP:NOTADVERTISING, and thst is enough, especially considering the largely obvious PR initiatives here which suggest nothing else, and a comment merely repeating what a Keep comment suggested including about sourcing, means nothing if the comment is not actually acknowledging and considering the anaylsis of said sources, therefore claiming Keep is still not the same thing. Once we start making excuses for keeping advertisements, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - after reviewing the lists of sources in the !keep votes above, it is clear that enough significant coverage exists in independent reliable sources to pass WP:CORP. The verbose commentary above is also acknowledged, however it is entirely unconvincing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was a little amazed to see this even being discussed. How can one defend an article on an insignificant $15 million new company whose principal output to date has been a flurry of press releases? I wouldn't suggest going entirely by size of the company, because sometimes a small company really is innovative enough to justify real news coverage, but a me-too company like this is another matter. Blind reliance upon the GNG without considering the actual reliability of what are no longer honest sources (or areh onest sources only in part, which is the case for essentially all business newspapers) is destructive to the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It is definitely passing the frontiers of WP:CORPDEPTH...On lighter side...DGG and SwisterTwister have little high levels of standards when it comes to articles related to companies... I have never seen them vote keep... Hitro talk 21:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it's advertising , regardless of whatever has been noted above, because the analyses have had larger weight of shoeing the concerns, so it should not and will not be expected for any of us to vote Keep for an advertisement. Suggesting we "change" our standards for advertising is going to largely damn us as an encyclopedia because it will show that we cannot even control the simplest advertising that needs removal. Please state where, how and why this is not advertising, without citing anything of PR and unconvincing information coming from company-supplied words. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an advertisement then we should rewrite it or we should place an advert tag there, we shouldn't discuss deletion.... question is whether it is notable or not.. Techcrunch and Strait Times are covering this company.. I guess it is notable and it deserves to stay here...Plus it has been covered in other reliable sources... Hitro talk 22:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question...what do you mean by "Our Standards"? I believe there is just one standard Hitro talk 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning is WP's standards. Or at least what WP's standards are supposed to be, instead of the current very low levelfor these articles. FWIW,I !vote keep a little over 1/3 the time. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the only truly independent sources that I was able to find discuss the company's labor practices (misleading advertising to potential contractors). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. The article was created by Special:Contributions/Karentho who is currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The article was also extensively edited by an account bearing the company's name. Thus paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Pls see WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage the spammers by keeping promotional articles on non notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources presented in article and at this AfD meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, maybe redirect to Formation 8. The main claim to notability seems to be its funding, so a redirect to the funder seems appropriate. My reading of the sources is that the company has ~55 employees and ~500 contract grocery purchasers/"runners" - not sure why this sort of information isn't in the wp page, but it doesn't sound terribly notable. The funding sounds notable, but it isn't clear the notability there belongs to the company or to the funder, given that there are few independent details about the firm in the article.Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the significant sourcing available from reliable sources such as the Straights Times and Forbes. As far as I know, the number of employees or contractors has not been a per se requirement for WP:CORP. All start-ups engage in PR, although many will deny it. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about how the small number of employees fit with DGG's point that the funding wasn't so large (I don't know anything about what is or isn't a big amount of funding) and together implied that the company might not necessarily be receiving significant attention aside from the press release based reports SwisterTwister discusses above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (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.