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 clear agreement on the subjective question of whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, or just another run-of-the-mill company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toptal[edit]

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

Advertising for a company whose actions and job environment of course involve such PR advertising, and it is a fact regardless of what publication name is listed in this article, and that's because even these publications themselves only either published the company's own PR in those articles, or simply casually mention them (the latter fittingly applies to the WallStreetJournal, which is apparently about the subject of financing and technology itself, and only casually mentions this company). Something else to note is the apparent fact this was accepted from AfC while there was literally paid advertising-only accounts involved, it first started with one account (still last active in April) followed by a few newere accounts who also then started adding advertising, that is self-explanatory.

Before anyone suggests sources, note how even this one search found everything there is to know: Sources either consisted of published-republished PR, interviews, first-person company words such as "The company says", "The company's founder says", etc. Even then, the major publications listed in the link above are then also only publishing the company's own PR and it even notes it by either saying "Information supplied by the company" or "Here's a repeat of what the company's website says". Finally, the sheer fact this article only cares to emphasize "What the company's clients are" or "Who is helping finance and support this company" is damning enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (obvious PR refs are used) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a whole lot of PR in the article, for sure. But there's a number of articles that I believe meet the criteria. This TechCrunch article by the editor-at-large does not use extensive quotes from Toptal and therefore meets the criteria in WP:RS. Also the Bloomberg story appears to be independent and does not rely on quotes from Toptal. I took a quick look through the other references and IMHO the rest of the references fail as either being primary sources or they are not independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge SkillBridge into it. Hard to tell if these are more than just "two kids and an app". Clearly about 90% of the article is promotional and needs to go, at any rate. The bit of material that is non-promotion is not sourced. I can also see a delete has some grounds, and then perhaps try another one later minus the obvious PR if the company stands the test of time. Borderline on the reliable independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the asserted two reliable source for notability , the bloomberg article is a a few mentions in a long general article; the Telecrunch article is usable, but it is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with sections on "Description, "News" etc. This material belongs on the company's web site, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten to remove promotional tone but the topic does appear to be notable. There are numerous independent references available such as this Huffington post interview with a female coder in Nepal, or this article about Toptal providing talent to develop an app for the Cleveland Cavaliers, or the Chicago Tribune interview with a freelance coder, or this interview with Evil Angel using Toptal. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and strip obvious PR. Clearly, there is too much praise on the company and the sources are weak. In the other side googling shows quite a few stories about people liking the nomad style of living and being successful on this with Toptal, so it's not that this is all fake. I would volunteer to clean it up, although will retain from any action to give everybody a fair chance to vote. --Pkuczynski (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed news about how people love the company and they use it is not in fact what makes notability here and we shouldn't mistake otherwise. Especially since such materials would only serve and hint as advertising and this alone, the next thing is that we would need caution from which websites, since the majority of them are either publishing first-hand or secondhand advertising, regardless of publication. Also, having said this, it therefore acknowledges the concerns and damns the article given it's existing only for advertising, we would never compromise with that. Also, as the Delete votes notr above, the sources (even the oned listed here above) are literally then only published and republished interviews and advertisements, therefore not showing this is all that exists, but it shows improvements would not in fact genuinely exist (nomination as it is began with: all sources found and existing are PR, case closed). SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article in the current form should be deleted. But the company does exist�. They do run a legitimate business and I heard about them in many of software engineering networks. That's why I am voting for keep and rewrite, removing all the crap and leaving only neutral and well confirmed information. Pkuczynski (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point made that the materials "hint at advertising" could be made about *any* publication that talks positively about a company/product. The interviews are published in reliable sources and appear to be independent and therefore those sources appear to meet the criteria to establish notability. This criteria for deletion does state that an article may be deleted for Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content and I'm assuming this is the main reason for nominating this article for deletion so if Pkuczynski is happy to attempt to address those concerns, I say go for it! -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copytedit chainsaw engaged: I've made a start at cutting out a lot of unnecessary puffery that adds nothing to the encyclopedic content. Please feel free to continue the job. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tightened up the sourcing and content, and removed additional non-notable info. Timtempleton (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Sorry guys: the cleanup has indeed been massive, but what's left behind in a WP:MILL business with a very minor "controversy" attached to it. Still reads like a startup blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article isn't great. But the problem has moved. It no longer meets the criteria in WP:DEL4 for deletion (or any of the other criteria) and has sufficient references to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH. So what reason is left to delete? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source. I missed in the existing sources that there was a co-founder. Info missing now is a more detailed synthesis of the virtual office situation, which is actually covered pretty well in the article I just added.Timtempleton (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources for WP:CORP notability, and the attention to the topic is WP:SUSTAINED. As per WP:5P3, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CORP means nothing when this is a such blatant advertisement that WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, which are both policy, then apply, especially the fact the listed sources are literally only published and republished company-supplied information, regardless of publication name, because all that matters is the information, and so if the information is still PR, it means nothing. Once we start compromising about accepting such blatant advertising when it only damages us as an encyclopedia, we're damned.

For example, before anyone asks, this is when the article was first nominated and this is it now, literally the sources are all still there with PR, regardless of anything about them, and the controversy section is trivial, especially compared to the still existing focus of company PR. For example, even BusinessInsider is simply advertising facts about the company's own thoughts and actions, none of that is substance let alone independent coverage. Also, lastly, when it shows the sheer blatancy that the PR was still eminent in the article, it genuinely shows there's nothing actually at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, without digging too far into each site's business model, they seem to all be WP:RS and not PR. Can you specify which ones concern you, and I'll look them up in more detail? Thx. Timtempleton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is notorious for simply republishing and piecing together company-supplied information for their own "articles" (and they will in fact will always specify, by either "Information by company website" or "see their website for this information") thus not a convincing source, as the same can be said for MarketWatch which is simply compiled financials and listings; next, HuffPost is clearly another listing with only company-iniatef and supplied information. Inc.com is another publication known for focusing with "not yet notable" companies hence their "Companies to Watch" lists. Simply none of this is genuinely substance, regardless of anything because it's the contents that matter and these noticeably emphasize PR advertising.

Nothing can suggest better than policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which are in fact applicable here, hence suitable for article removal. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to techcrunch.com's home page [[1]] and don't see any pr - just stories about Jill Stein's recount efforts, Salesforce as a pipeline for SaaS startup executives, Japan creating a deep learning supercomputer and Peter Thiel tapping someone from his fund to help with Trump's transition team. All notable stories. You can't say that the articles on the site for subjects you oppose are fluff, and the others are not - that's confirmation bias. Also, I've worked for tech companies, and know that press releases are issued specifically to get press coverage - anyone can post something to business wire or market wire, but not every piece issued by a company is chosen as the basis of an independent article. So even seeing articles that are similar to press releases doesn't disqualify them. Our careful distillation of the info into articles while ensuring that we've keep a neutral tone should eliminate any promotionalism - as I feel we have done here. I can't possibly claim that my efforts to create or save articles in any way match the volume of work you do to delete articles, but my instinct is usually pretty good, and I stand behind the defenses of the occasional articles I do try to save. As we stand now, there's no clear consensus, so as is usually done in such cases, hopefully someone will close this discussion.Timtempleton (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In cases like this, where the number or quality of sources is unclear, it's sometimes useful to ask: is WP more complete for having the article? Does it tell us something about the world? The answer here is a resounding "No." Just another tech company among countless others. Matt Deres (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article meets notability requirements in WP:CORP and has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources that are undisputedly significant. Icebob99 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP are not significant compared to policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, both of which have been cited here specifically. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly edited since the AfD was filed and the spam and promotional content deleted to meet the requirements of policy and WP:NOT (WP:SPAM is a guideline not a policy). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically listed my comparisons above about how the article has still consistently stayed the same, keeping the same PR tones and information. WP:NOT is one of the highest policies we can get and use to remove any article, regardless of anything, that and WP:IAR. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT was not listed in the nomination. Nor was WP:IAR. Nor was any WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination cast aspersions ("literally paid advertising-only accounts") on content contributors without providing evidence. Do you have evidence of WP:NOT problems? Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In SwisterTwister's defense, I can see the earlier draft that was deleted and it's not hard to tell which editors' body of work is limited to this article and a small handful of others. We can assume good faith, but nonetheless, the original article was chainsawed by HighKing (literally just as I was going to do the exact same thing) and I made some minor tweaks afterwards. If the original posters have a conflict of interest, and they had disclosed it, I think this article would have gone ahead very much like it is now.Timtempleton (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer promotional and meets inclusion guidelines (sources etc.). Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - I seem to be misunderstood since when I said above about the comparisons, I was exactly talking about the said changes above, and how it's still not enough. Regardless of the changes, it's still violating WP:NOT (policy) since this is still a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked elsewhere, but could you specify what exact part of WP:NOT you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 11:11, 30 November 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.