This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Braze, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section is not following summary style, providing intricate detail on various funding rounds, dates and venture firms, including some that are non notable. Moving this here in case someone would like to use the sources for anything else:
References
fortune
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving here for storage in case someone wants to use the source for something else:
References
Both are non notable individuals and this is a non-meaningful intricate detail not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving here for storage; if these contain useful info they should be used as refs instead:
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the content restoration that has occurred in this article ( diff). A user that opined for deletion at the deletion discussion had stripped the article down to an unacceptable level, essentially qualifying the article for WP:A7 deletion. North America 1000 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I support restoring the more comprehensive version because all of the removed information is reliably sourced and encyclopedic as I explained here. Cunard ( talk) 22:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues". There was no consensus to delete the article, so the tag should not be restored because notability has already been discussed. The notability tag should not remain on the article indefinitely. If you continue to believe the article is non-notable, as per Template:Notability#Removing this tag, please either discuss on this talk page or renominate the article at AfD instead of edit warring over the tag.If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources.
If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.
A "further reading" section seems completely inappropriate for this sort of article. This isn't about some sort of broad philosophical or academic concept. Such lists are routinely removed under WP:ELNO. If they're references, use them in the article, and if they're not, they don't belong there per WP:ELNO and should be stored here. Don't use the mainspace article as your scratchpad - David Gerard ( talk) 23:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with David Gerard that a "further reading" section is inappropriate. If the links there tell us interesting/important facts about the business, incorporate those facts into the article and use the links as sources. If there's nothing that can be added, then they shouldn't be in the article at all, and linking them seems to a tad too promotional for my tastes. As for the notability tag, my understanding is that it's only inappropriate to re-add notability tags if the result of the AfD was keep. A no-consensus close mean that there was no consensus about the notability, so it might not be notable, which makes the tag appropriate. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
"I recognize the possible usefulness of the material. But this could be equally well served by placing the references on the talk page...", regarding equal usefulness, this is not necessarily the case here. For example, compare the page views for the article and this talk page for the last 90 days. These figures naturally suggest that the sources are much more likely to be seen, and therefore used to expand this incomplete article, when placed in the actual article. Just saying. North America 1000 21:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Braze, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section is not following summary style, providing intricate detail on various funding rounds, dates and venture firms, including some that are non notable. Moving this here in case someone would like to use the sources for anything else:
References
fortune
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving here for storage in case someone wants to use the source for something else:
References
Both are non notable individuals and this is a non-meaningful intricate detail not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving here for storage; if these contain useful info they should be used as refs instead:
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the content restoration that has occurred in this article ( diff). A user that opined for deletion at the deletion discussion had stripped the article down to an unacceptable level, essentially qualifying the article for WP:A7 deletion. North America 1000 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I support restoring the more comprehensive version because all of the removed information is reliably sourced and encyclopedic as I explained here. Cunard ( talk) 22:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues". There was no consensus to delete the article, so the tag should not be restored because notability has already been discussed. The notability tag should not remain on the article indefinitely. If you continue to believe the article is non-notable, as per Template:Notability#Removing this tag, please either discuss on this talk page or renominate the article at AfD instead of edit warring over the tag.If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources.
If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.
A "further reading" section seems completely inappropriate for this sort of article. This isn't about some sort of broad philosophical or academic concept. Such lists are routinely removed under WP:ELNO. If they're references, use them in the article, and if they're not, they don't belong there per WP:ELNO and should be stored here. Don't use the mainspace article as your scratchpad - David Gerard ( talk) 23:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with David Gerard that a "further reading" section is inappropriate. If the links there tell us interesting/important facts about the business, incorporate those facts into the article and use the links as sources. If there's nothing that can be added, then they shouldn't be in the article at all, and linking them seems to a tad too promotional for my tastes. As for the notability tag, my understanding is that it's only inappropriate to re-add notability tags if the result of the AfD was keep. A no-consensus close mean that there was no consensus about the notability, so it might not be notable, which makes the tag appropriate. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
"I recognize the possible usefulness of the material. But this could be equally well served by placing the references on the talk page...", regarding equal usefulness, this is not necessarily the case here. For example, compare the page views for the article and this talk page for the last 90 days. These figures naturally suggest that the sources are much more likely to be seen, and therefore used to expand this incomplete article, when placed in the actual article. Just saying. North America 1000 21:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)