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. Sandstein 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My extensively informed PROD was removed, and examining the newly added sources are finding the exact same thing: every single article contains puffery words such as "the company's success and successful" along with specific information about the company, its services, images of what they offer and other company activities. One of the things I'll note is that The Atlantic goes as far to only ever contain puffery words, there was no actual journalism happening let alone objective information. The Economist is particularly blatant with being covered in the businessman's words ("I’ve always been fascinated with technology, gadgetry, and innovation. For years now, I’ve been reading Technology news with my breakfast and watching every single TED video I can squeeze into my day. When Kickstarter entered the scene, it was everything I loved wrapped in one glorious website. After backing a variety of projects over the last year, I saw a need for a website that took over where Kickstarter and other crowdfunding platforms....Enter Outgrow.me", ""Outgrow.me has every chance of living to the name" (note this last quote is actually the end of the article, not an actual journalist's words, since it was clearly an exact company quote), there was no actual journalism there. This same article goes to then ask what the man's background and activities, are, that's glorified PR and advertising alone. No one actually reading that would say "it's substantial and sSimply because there is a major news source is not automatically suggesting it must be news, this is exactly why churnalism continues and this fits it. My specifics were noted as it is when I said that not only is this article ever focusing with only puffery, but that it was clearly and explicitly touched by PR agents. Note how not only has TheHuffingtonPost become a mass place for PR, the article in fact simply consists of an interview, where the person is only talking about the one thing: the company. As noted with my PROD, there is nothing here that goes to both independent notability and substance and non-PR source; so there's imaginably nothing to gain from actually showcasing supposed "news" if it's only PR and PR alone. The uses of all these listed articles wee clearly and essentially used to only advertise the business and services, this is shown by the fact the images contain flashy images, no genuine news would ever contain this if it actually intended to give genuine news. For additional specifications, I'll note the Czech article is also only using flashy contents and if's not even larger than a few limited paragraphs, that I'd also not actual journalism, instead it was an attempt to simply toss some information (granted information supplied by the company itself) to make it seem like news. SwisterTwistertalk 06:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Below are some sources based upon cursory source searches. It appears that additional sources are also available online. North America1000 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I reviewed the refs on the article, the refs noted above, and did my own search to confirm that additional indy RS sources exists. The significant coverage meets WP:WEBCRIT. I would also like to thank the nominator for using the Streisand effect to bring our attention to so many interesting notable companies. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These personal comments aside, I will actually talk about the article since that's what we're here about, not to talk about what the nominator has supposedly caused or not; I explicitly examined the sources above and what they consisted of, the ones above are essentially the same thing, so it's not actually a lot of convincing from that, if the best that can be offered....are the same exact ones. Simply stating that my comments are whatever they may be, is not the same thing as actually acknowledging I have commented the concerns of the sources. "indy RS sources" cannot be fit to what these sources in fact are, because the sources themselves, again, state PR and PR-based information, we cannot count that as simply being acceptable because of the website it comes from and how major that website is. Seeing the Atlantic again, "Some of the products you can purchase now include [followed by named companies]...On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products. Its hook, and its commercial logic, leverage the way its wares came into being -- through crowdfunding, and through the particular brand of community-focused commercialism that Kickstarter and Indiegogo represent. Outgrow.me, in that sense, acknowledges what every user of Kickstarter already knows: that when you fund, or buy, a Sonastand for your phone, or an Airslab for your laptop, or a Freaker koozie for your beer ... you're not just buying a thing. You're buying into a thing". that is essentially a sales pitch there by comparably listing other companies, the tone of it speaks from what a PR agent would say, not an uninvolved journalist. The supposed CNET review says: " Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time", that's all things only a list of clients and investors want to know about, not uninvolved and neutral people. SwisterTwistertalk 18:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment above is not taking into consideration or even noticing how I specifically analyzed the sources listed above. The Inc. itself is clearly a PR attempt since it focuses with the company's plans and what they are, which include their funding and finance activists. None of that is substantial or significant and should not be mistaken as such simply because they come from a known new source, there is no compromise of accepting PR even if it has the sheerness of being veiled as "news". These are stated facts as shown by analyzing the sources above. This Inc article itself lately focuses with the people involved, the investing and everything else there is to advertise that information. Once we start accepting articles with advertisements, that is when Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but instead a PR website. SwisterTwistertalk 20:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - Not only is the comment above actually acknowledged one of the listed sources may be paid PR (they even go as far to then say "the sources included above", but this comment never actually acknowledges any single concern listed, despite I listed them multiple times), but I'll note the Yahoo! News is actually a company-supplied information "article" as it is, with the information clearly coming from the website itself, "Kickstarter and Indiegogo are great crowd-funding sites for entrepreneurs, but they’re also very trendy now. For every awesome product on each site there are dozens of, well, not-so-awesome products. Outgrow.me makes it easy to view the best products these two sites have to offer using a great design that is easy to navigate....As an added bonus, Outgrow.me addresses one of the biggest problems among crowd-funded products. Since a lot of great (and well-funded) products don’t ship on time, the site has an option to only view items that are “orderable” today." (going from named mentions of other companies to services and then about shipping and buying, that's not new, that's PR). That is a sales pitch and a pitch alone; that was not even close to actual journalistic efforts. I am unable to see the Belfast Telegraph article, but for something that (1) was not even mentioned in the first paragraphs, suggests it was not that major a story for this particular company, and also (2) the fact it seems to focus with websites overall, suggesting it will, again, likely be focused with technology and websites, not this particular company. TheNextWeb hardly actually mentions the company a few times (5 simple mentions, not longer than a few included mentions in sentences), let alone it actually being in-depth coverage. The last one, CNET, although listed with a named journalist, started with "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time" and then finishes with "Outgrow.me sells....". It's concerning that none of the Keep vote have even considered this yet they listed this as being "significant and substantial coverage", but it only took me a few seconds to minutes to quickly find everything there was to actually say about those articles (I'll note the comments never even came close to actually mentioning or acknowledging my extensive PROD), therefore these Keep votes are still outweighed by my extensive analysis above, no other comments have attempted to satisfy the actual concerns, and again, simply stating that this or that major news source happened to mention the company, is not actually amounting to substantial and significant news, especially if they are simply shoehorned mentions or PR. If these comments are not soon acknowledging the concerns especially the new analysis above, a relist may benefit as so a fuller consensus and attention can be obtained. SwisterTwistertalk 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-Delete. The style of the article is advertising since the only other sentene is sayng one of other 50 best webistes in 2013. In the references, Laughing Squid is a blog, Noah Nelson is an interview and non notable journalist and Alexa Internet is a site ranking site. Alexa internet alone isn't notable. It is just a scale, comparable to a 0-100 in an academic setting. The further reading does not do much justice. Never mind the one in the Czech Language, the articles are more of promotional tone such as the piece by the Economist. It says "THOUSANDS of products have been made using seed money obtained via crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Yet once the money is raised, and products created and shipped to initial backers, designers have a new problem: how to sell their wares to new customers. Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me.". really??? It reads someone had paid someone to put this piece on post so someone can read it. It really reads as something that would needs some Pr coverage in order to drive in coverage. Anyways, delete. Pyrusca (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To state the obvious, like with today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeopleStrong, there was consensus like here, that the sources and merely asserting they exist, are not the convincing claims needed alone to actually suggest this is notable and acceptable; what I have stated above with my analysis have not been counterchallenged, therefore they are presumed to be taken seriously, and therefore the Keep votes have not considered or acknowledged the concerns listed. I have explicitly listed the PR concerns, and like the Delete vote above that cared to actually also specify and concur with the analysis, no matter what the Keep comments suggest, they themselves have not actually gone to deep analysis (again, like the PeopleStrong AfD, which in fact had). SwisterTwistertalk 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources I provided above are bylinednews articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Sources that provide positive coverage about topics are not automatically "pr" as some sort of default. North America1000 03:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there are no indications of notability or significance; the entire article is literally this:
Outgrow.me is an online marketplace for products that have been successfully funded on crowdfunding platforms. The company is based in New York.[1] It was selected as one of the 50 best websites 2013 by Time Magazine.[2]
Even for such a short article, it manages to be entirely WP:PROMO; the only purpose for the article to exist on such a non-notable entity is to serve as a promotional platform. The sources offered above confirm that the company exists, but not much else. I don't believe it's in the best interest of the project to accept advertorial articles on insignificant subjects, as volunteer editors' time would be wasted trying to maintain neutrality of this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 29 September 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.