![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have a WP: COI as a paid consultant to 99designs. I try my best to abide by the five pillars. Happy to help with any additional work that needs to be done to this draft. BC1278 ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I added the notability tag to the article because the article does not appear to successfully establish notability according to WP:NCORP. None of the material about opening offices or rounds of funding can be considered to contribute to notability and the intro does not make any specific claim about what the company is notable for. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
User: DGG I've added many sources to this article, along with an explanation at the AfD discussion. As a result, the two reasons you cited for deletion are no longer applicable. 1) There are no press releases cited; 2) There are many sources that go beyond "mere notices." See, for example: this, this and this, this, this, this, this, this, this. A process has already started, below, to improve the article with substantial new content and sources. I'd request that you let this play out by either withdrawing the AfD nomination or if that's not possible, by at least saying that after further review you see the sources are not only press releases or mere notices. If those who are active in AfD try to immediately reverse the work of those active in AfC (now requiring two editors to sign off), it places the two projects at odds. Why should editors wait three months for an AfC review if it's not respected enough to at least merit Talk discussion? The better route would seem to be to first discuss notability and improving the article on Talk with the involved editors, which was how this was proceeding before the AfD nom. BC1278 ( talk) 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I accidentally linked to MOS:PLAINLIST instead of WP:UBLIST by mistake in an edit summary while editing this article (maybe then draft). This was at about the same time as the draft got approved, which means many edits were being made in a short amount of time, so making a note in the edit summary of another edit right after it wouldn't be possible. I have made an edit mentioning it in the edit summary, but there are several edits between the two. So now I'm writing on the talk page. – Pretended leer { talk} 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hi,
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a COI here, disclosed above, as a paid consultant to 99designs.
This article was approved a couple of days ago from AfC, after a significant haircut made by me after an initial complaint about promotional language and as a result of comments/edits made by 3 editors at Teahouse who helped address the complaint. Wikipedia:Teahouse#Assistance_with_Draft:_99designs It was then reviewed again by another editor, Araratic, for notability after it was moved to mainspace.
An AfD nomination was made. I think it will be helpful toward further establishing notability to restore two subjects from the longer version, especially the highly controversial business model that has divided the design community.
Insert as second paragraph of History:
From the onset, the platform divided the design community. The competition model drew criticism because the losing bidders in contests are not paid for their designs. [1] The company and its competitors spurred a "NO!SPEC" campaign. [2] [3] [4] Winning bids were also typically at lower rates than established designers charge, leading to further friction. [3] [5] Critics also said the fast turnaround time of contests could lower the quality of work. [6] Other designers, however, have said they successfully used the platform as a business development tool to build long-term relationships with clients. [7] About one-third of contest winners are hired for follow-on work, according to the company. [8] The company has defended the contest model as facilitating equal access to projects, leading to more merit-based hiring. [6] New designers are also able to work on improving their design skills in a real client bidding environment, the company said. [4] As part of its response to the criticism, the company also established a mentoring network for more experienced designers to coach new designers on design skills necessary to win bids. [9]
Insert in second to last paragraph of History:
The platform became the largest in the world for logo design competitions. [9]
Thank you. BC1278 ( talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
References
Please consult prior intervening editors
John from Idegon, timetempleton, Pretended leer, Aratic, jmcgnh Alerting editors in Teahouse discussion of Draft of 99 designs, and Notability discussion above, to actual AfD nomination at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99designs_(2nd_nomination). Also, please see my proposed changes for better establishing the notability of the article - including the criticism sections that helps show how this company impacted the graphic design industry, for better or worse. The criticism is the opposite of promotional but does get at why many reliable sources found this company to be worth covering. I can't implement these because of COI but you might consider making these changes. BC1278 ( talk) 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I have a COI, as disclosed above. Therefore, while I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I request review of the following proposals:
1) Remove: from lead, "...has a United States office in San Francisco, California."
Replace with:...has a United States office in Oakland, California." [1]
2) Insert, in History, after "In 2008, the company opened a San Francisco office, because the majority of the platform's clients and designers were in the United States."
3) Insert in History, the word "initial" in this sentence: "....because the majority of the platform's initial clients and designers were in the United States. [3] [4]
4) Insert, in History, after "In 2012, the company acquired a European competitor called 12designer, based in Germany":
Please let me know if I can answer any questions. BC1278 ( talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278
References
Like the section header says, the logo is way too large. I am not proficient in these areas, so if someone agrees then let's cut it down to about 60% of current size. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have a WP: COI as a paid consultant to 99designs. I try my best to abide by the five pillars. Happy to help with any additional work that needs to be done to this draft. BC1278 ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I added the notability tag to the article because the article does not appear to successfully establish notability according to WP:NCORP. None of the material about opening offices or rounds of funding can be considered to contribute to notability and the intro does not make any specific claim about what the company is notable for. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
User: DGG I've added many sources to this article, along with an explanation at the AfD discussion. As a result, the two reasons you cited for deletion are no longer applicable. 1) There are no press releases cited; 2) There are many sources that go beyond "mere notices." See, for example: this, this and this, this, this, this, this, this, this. A process has already started, below, to improve the article with substantial new content and sources. I'd request that you let this play out by either withdrawing the AfD nomination or if that's not possible, by at least saying that after further review you see the sources are not only press releases or mere notices. If those who are active in AfD try to immediately reverse the work of those active in AfC (now requiring two editors to sign off), it places the two projects at odds. Why should editors wait three months for an AfC review if it's not respected enough to at least merit Talk discussion? The better route would seem to be to first discuss notability and improving the article on Talk with the involved editors, which was how this was proceeding before the AfD nom. BC1278 ( talk) 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I accidentally linked to MOS:PLAINLIST instead of WP:UBLIST by mistake in an edit summary while editing this article (maybe then draft). This was at about the same time as the draft got approved, which means many edits were being made in a short amount of time, so making a note in the edit summary of another edit right after it wouldn't be possible. I have made an edit mentioning it in the edit summary, but there are several edits between the two. So now I'm writing on the talk page. – Pretended leer { talk} 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hi,
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a COI here, disclosed above, as a paid consultant to 99designs.
This article was approved a couple of days ago from AfC, after a significant haircut made by me after an initial complaint about promotional language and as a result of comments/edits made by 3 editors at Teahouse who helped address the complaint. Wikipedia:Teahouse#Assistance_with_Draft:_99designs It was then reviewed again by another editor, Araratic, for notability after it was moved to mainspace.
An AfD nomination was made. I think it will be helpful toward further establishing notability to restore two subjects from the longer version, especially the highly controversial business model that has divided the design community.
Insert as second paragraph of History:
From the onset, the platform divided the design community. The competition model drew criticism because the losing bidders in contests are not paid for their designs. [1] The company and its competitors spurred a "NO!SPEC" campaign. [2] [3] [4] Winning bids were also typically at lower rates than established designers charge, leading to further friction. [3] [5] Critics also said the fast turnaround time of contests could lower the quality of work. [6] Other designers, however, have said they successfully used the platform as a business development tool to build long-term relationships with clients. [7] About one-third of contest winners are hired for follow-on work, according to the company. [8] The company has defended the contest model as facilitating equal access to projects, leading to more merit-based hiring. [6] New designers are also able to work on improving their design skills in a real client bidding environment, the company said. [4] As part of its response to the criticism, the company also established a mentoring network for more experienced designers to coach new designers on design skills necessary to win bids. [9]
Insert in second to last paragraph of History:
The platform became the largest in the world for logo design competitions. [9]
Thank you. BC1278 ( talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
References
Please consult prior intervening editors
John from Idegon, timetempleton, Pretended leer, Aratic, jmcgnh Alerting editors in Teahouse discussion of Draft of 99 designs, and Notability discussion above, to actual AfD nomination at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/99designs_(2nd_nomination). Also, please see my proposed changes for better establishing the notability of the article - including the criticism sections that helps show how this company impacted the graphic design industry, for better or worse. The criticism is the opposite of promotional but does get at why many reliable sources found this company to be worth covering. I can't implement these because of COI but you might consider making these changes. BC1278 ( talk) 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
I have a COI, as disclosed above. Therefore, while I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I request review of the following proposals:
1) Remove: from lead, "...has a United States office in San Francisco, California."
Replace with:...has a United States office in Oakland, California." [1]
2) Insert, in History, after "In 2008, the company opened a San Francisco office, because the majority of the platform's clients and designers were in the United States."
3) Insert in History, the word "initial" in this sentence: "....because the majority of the platform's initial clients and designers were in the United States. [3] [4]
4) Insert, in History, after "In 2012, the company acquired a European competitor called 12designer, based in Germany":
Please let me know if I can answer any questions. BC1278 ( talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278
References
Like the section header says, the logo is way too large. I am not proficient in these areas, so if someone agrees then let's cut it down to about 60% of current size. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)