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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toptal[edit]

Toptal (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)

A directory-like listing for an freelance marketplace. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP self-promotion, and routine notices. First AfD closed as "No consensus"; sources in the article or presented at the AfD are not compelling. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created and extensively edited by two SPAs. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure you're going to get a consensus here where the last one failed, but after review all of the sources appear run of the mill businessy to me. SportingFlyer talk 06:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles created by single-purpose accounts are more often than not prime candidates for deletion. When will they ever learn?-The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the previous closer listed the close as a "No Consensus" with reasoning of No clear agreement on the subjective question of whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, or just another run-of-the-mill company, I disagree with this reasoning. The article was cleaned up somewhat during the previous AfD and more than one editor (including me) pointed out a number of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not one editor questioned the suitability of the sources. Previously, the article was promotional but while there are still a couple of phrases in the article that I believe could easily be removed with little impact to the article, it does not have the same problems as previously. In the previous AfD, I noted the following: 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. It may not be a brilliant article but it meets the criteria and therefore should be kept. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. interviews with the subject of the article or a closely associated person are not RSs for notability , because they're not 3rd party--they are usually instigated by PR, and they're not independent, because the interviewee cana say what they might please. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 20 March 2018 (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.