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 delete. After extended discussion, there is a clear consensus favoring deletion of the article as it stands at this time. This is without prejudice to the future creation of an article on this topic, if reliable independent sources are found to support such an article. Editors who believe that an article meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion may consider creating a draft at Draft:Mavenlink, excluding the sources deemed objectionable and instead providing reliable independent sources, and submitting this draft for consideration through the usual process for evaluation of drafts. bd2412T 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly advertorial content, with sections such as "Funding & Investments" and "Product features". Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editor. Simply a promotional brochure. Onel5969TT me 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just read about them yesterday in the Orange County Business Journal and went to this article to learn more, and saw they were nominated for deletion. I added the coverage, and deleted the promotional info. Looks good now. Still missing some funding info - will have to look for it later when I have more time.TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But business journals are explicitly considered unacceptable by both WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG, so how they can considered acceptable in this one specific instance? SwisterTwistertalk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that business journals can't be used to source information about businesses. I'm not sure what WP:ORGIND is but can you show me specifically in WP:GNG where it says that? Forbes, Fortune and Crain's (from various cities) are all used quite extensively as Wikipedia sources, and my local business journals are also great sources of info on local businesses. In this specific case, from what DreamyShade added below, PC Magazine, CIO magazine and Computerworld are all considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Discounting them as worthless hurts your credibility as an AfD voter or AfD delete nominator of business articles. If you tried to delete those articles, you'd find this out from many others besides me. I'm also going to have to disagree that a funding announcement is not news. Funding announcements are very good indicators that a company has gotten to the critical point and is finally ready to take off. There's a term called Unicorn that specifically refers to companies that are valued at $1B due to recent funding rounds. I know you wouldn't (or at least I hope you wouldn't) suggest that since funding is immaterial news, that article should be deleted as well? Funding is very reliable info - companies have to file Form D financial statements within 15 days of funding - they can't make the numbers up. Also, you and I have discussed this in at least one other prior deletion discussion, but saying that media coverage that is spurred by a press release should be ignored on principle, I'm sorry to say, just shows a misunderstanding of the role of public relations in business. Thousands and thousands of press releases are released every day. Journalists only cover the ones that seem to be notable to them. Business journalists don't sit outside of most business offices trying to get scoops - they scan the wire services. Finally, per your note and examples below, I agree with you that there's a COI trend here, maybe not all of them but at least from the single article editors, but if there are 2-3 people working together from a company, and none of them are as experienced with Wikipedia guidelines as you and I, it's conceivable that this could be innocent editing. Once they get bitten and realize that they screwed up, I don't blame them for wanting to stay low and not declare a COI. For all they know, you could be passionate and volatile - they don't whether or not you might try to do PR damage to the company. The nominator has been sanctioned for tag bombing articles and canvassing, and narrowly avoided another ban. These are not CEOs and business owners themselves doing this editing - they are likely rank and file employees who could very well fear getting fired for what happens to the company as a result of these notability attacks and tag bombs. But this shouldn't be grounds for not allowing others to try to improve articles and maybe save them, as I'm trying to. Otherwise, your best intentions will likely only drive more people to paid editors. Did you catch this? [[1]] TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources available for WP:GNG. Several of the existing sources are to newspapers or established online publications with editorial practices, not blogs - Orange County Business Journal, The Next Web, Yahoo Small Business, ZDNet, VentureBeat. I found many additional third-party reliable sources with a Google News search, such as:
Actually GNG says we cannot accept funding announcements or interviews which three-fourths of what's above is exactly this. Adding to this, GNG also says that editorial discretion is not a sole factor in notability, but actually the weight of whether the content is actually independent, so because the information is interviews and mentions, it cannot be valid. SwisterTwistertalk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the changes made and the sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has received some copy editing after the nomination for deletion to address concerns with promotionalism, and per a source review, the topic meets WP:GNG. Any additional concerns with promotional tone can be addressed via further copy editing.North America1000 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration struck my !vote above. It appears that the SaaS is notable, rather than the company itself. Consider the above to be a comment at this time. North America1000 16:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I analyzed the sources and easily found them to be promotional, see: 1 is an indiscriminate list which violates WP:Not guide given an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not, 2 is only 1 review, 3 is like the 1st one and, worse, because it's a company interview therefore not independent at all and 4 is following this, 5 is a funding list which cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND since it says "anything directly or indirectly by the company or where the company talks about itself, routine announcements or listings", 6 is like the first one, and actually from a local TV station (therefore not substantial or significant) and The tool, dubbed Mavenlink Resource Planning and Management, intends to treat your projects and resources as interconnected cyclical processes more akin to enterprise resource planning (ERP) rather than one-off tasks. This pivot is designed to give managers and planners the ability to address company changes that might affect multiple project timelines, budgets, and profitability. The solution spans the service lifecycle from sales commitment to project delivery and postmortem analysis and finally 7 and 8 are once again anything directly or indirectly by the company since it says Upstairs at Mavenlink, employees are helping fast-growing businesses navigate digital obstacles. Andy Leavitt of Mavenlink describes the company's mission this way: "Anybody who bills for a fee, we want those businesses to come to us." and the company quickly expanded into Utah to find the tech talent it needed to help clients manage projects all over the world. As WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT state quite clearly, we are not a promotional webhost and suggesting that we make exceptions simply because of publication name is violating our fundamental pillar WP:Neutrality. As for GNG, it actually says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" and "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" (links to WP:What Wikipedia which is cited as a guaranteed policy factor). To analyze the Keep votes, one of them suggests a local trade publication but these are exactly "directly or indirectly by the company", the next offers the same business journal and none of that actually gives us new material to examine. See also WP:GNG which clearly states Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article so GNG cannot be an instant guaranteed it can be accepted since there are still valid concerns. As for copyediting, the specific page about this process actually says "Promotion cannot be improved if it still other concerns", and this is especially valid when considering clear COI as this, this, this, this, this and others, so suggesting that we brush it under the rug in absence of taking action on it, is not part of our goals here. Considering these were repeated back-to-back patterns, it's highly likely to say they were company employees, worse when they themselves were either sourcing back to the company website or pasting from it, therefore we have applicable concerns in our Terms of Use violations. In fact, the only changes made here were to remove a few pieces of puffery but the promotionalism was still noticeable, that is instantly evidence for WP:Deletion policy as unsuitable encyclopedia material. Suggesting that we act closer to a news source and cover special interests or trade subjects, would be violating WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper (policy). As the nomination states, "Blatant promotion" is in fact perfectly applicable. SwisterTwistertalk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Mavenlink software may be notable per PC Mag review linked, I don't see anything like reliable coverage of the company - it's business as usual through press releases. We are not yellow pages or PR-summary site. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put a longer comment above, but just wanted to make sure the closing editor is aware that your delete vote is based on the sources being press releases, yet I hope he/she confirms for themselves that there's not a single press release there. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not the case at all, this and this which are clearly printed in the company's name and are in the current article. These are the 2 especially blatant cases and, worse, the other similar "announcements" are heavily based off this, therefore that throws into question those other sources, as by policy WP:V. SwisterTwistertalk 04:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the link you posted in the article, but it turns out that the Yahoo Finance link [[2]] which is dead may have been PR. I deleted it per WP:OVERCITE. Much easier to fix than nominating and deleting. You can see from time to time in my editing history that I cull PR from random articles. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found in Dreamyshade (talk·contribs)'s comprehensive search for sources and the eloquent, incisive analysis by Timtempleton (talk·contribs) at 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This article is not routine coverage. The article contains detailed analysis and questioning of Mavenlink's decisions:
While this is the obvious next step for Mavenlink in its expansion it may be making an error. Currently the SaaS company is hosting its data on AWS in Oregon with a disaster recovery centre in Virginia. Asked whether they would be opening up a European instance Mavenlink responded: “Given the networked ecosystem architecture of our application, we are leveraging the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for data privacy, and leveraging other, modern methods to deliver performance across global geographies.”
While Mavenlink are now certified under the EU-US privacy shield this may not be enough to win some clients. This is especially true in Germany where data sovereignty is especially important. The EU-US privacy shield was criticised heavily last year. Most major hosting companies now have European data centres there seems little reason not to have an instance in the EU. It will be interesting to see what the Mavenlink strategy on this will be going forward. It may be that they are awaiting a critical mass of companies before opening up a non-US instance. The risk is that without that data centre in Europe they may find that some companies will not want to sign up.
I'm not convinced. Not because I believe the hype that SaaS requires no professional services, but more because Mavenlink has a difficult job to do here. For one thing, it has to differentiate its own product from the on-premises offerings out there. The general way that SaaS vendors do that is by articulating the ease of use, reduced time to value, better economics and easier integration that SaaS products bring. But by introducing MavenOps, Mavenlink needs to start articulating the very opposite: that SaaS is hard and that consulting is needed to deliver value.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I suspect Mavenlink's move has more to do with a difficult economic climate and pressure to deliver financial results than with any customer-facing factors. One to watch, but I'm not sure they're onto a winner here.
Critical analysis of a company's actions is neither routine coverage nor an advertisement.
Even with 2 controversies, this is not the multiple coverage needed in WP:GNG, see multiple sources are generally expected and, even then, it would be a matter of WP:1E because of circumstantial events considering the articles are each from 1 (2017) and 1 (2016); this is not the Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability...sustained coverage is....notability. How should this interpreted any differently you provide this a basis for keep, but I quoted the exact excerpts from it and the level of news coverage actually needed? SwisterTwistertalk 21:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage in multiple sources to meet GNG's requirement of significant coverage. There are sufficient sources unconnected to the subject to satisfy GNG's requirement of independent sources. TimTempleton did the work to WP:RESCUE this one. Cunard's analysis is spot-on. David in DC (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would this address the policy-based concerns and the detailed analysis given that GNG shows WP:What Wikipedia is not takes priority? Policy is what matters here and it can't be negotied or exchanged on anything. SwisterTwistertalk 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last relist
Delete because it's easy to see what's available on the subject isn't what notability is about, or even what counts as significant; see this or this; since no one ever actually made any improvements after the nomination either, I'm not convinced this is actually going to show notability or that we should expect it any later, if couldn't happen now. As always, Wikipedia is not a webhost for "articles to possibly improve" since GNG says articles must be labeled notable there and now. ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, and intended to be, showing multiple signs recognizable as the typical production of the typical promotional editor, from the self-serving introduction on "[the founders] sas a gap in ..." (every new business is started because the founders see a gap in whatever provision of whatever service or product they propose to do business in-- it may be intend as human interest but it is just boilerplate) to the list of multiple company social media sites at the bottom, a practice prohibited by our rules on linking, but an almost invariable part of the less competent variety of PR. An uninvolved ed. whom I respect , but who frequently tries to keep articles in this and related fields has been trying to improve it, by removing the worst of the references, but if it is finished there is not going to be enough substance left. The data on subscribers comes from a small section on the company in a "Multiple application that ..." article on a web site, and normally repeats only a PR claim. The funding information is PR-junk; it is included in promotional articles for two reasons--first, it is of some obvious importance to the owners of the company--and, except for the private investors-- nobody else; second, there are invariably announcement of this funding to be found, because it has for at least a century been the practice of financial enterprises to make sure they get published--and therefore it is the sort of trivial material that is specifically prohibited by our policies. I have myself tried to improve many poor quality articles, but I try to limit myself to those which are important enough to be worth the effort, and where there is decent material to be found. I no longer do it for run of the mill promotional articles like this, because the contributors of such material need to be discouraged, not assisted. It is in my opinion a misguided approach to try to lower the level of the encyclopedia. Promotional editing is prevalent enough from true promotional editors without the NPOV editors assisting it. There's no point discussing the details of the sourcing, because the entire effort is misguided -- the only way to help the encyclopedia increase good coverage in this area is to delete material of this sort. I'm writing this at longer length than usual in the hope is getting those editors still open to argument to think again about the effects of what they are doing. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG as promotional and damaging to the encyclopedia. I will add that a company's notability is always dubious when the most significant coverage comes from a content farm such as those run by Forbes and Computerworld. Coverage there is routinely bought and sold on websites such as Upwork, just like Wikipedia articles. Rentier (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I very much agree with DGG's words above, and SwisterTwister's in depth source review shows that the sources do not pass our high threshold for sources as mandated by WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:10, 13 August 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.