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. Fails
WP:NCORP due to sources being insufficiently reliable, independent, and/or significant in their coverage.
RL0919 (
talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. this is a notable company and appeared in many shows like
Shark TankMohamed Ouda (
talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Mohamed Ouda: I dropped a message on your talk page regarding paid editing, and you need to respond. Thank you –
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Mohamed Ouda, the topic is prone to promotion, and I think it fails
WP:CORP. It has been
WP:Reference bombed with a large number of low quality sources. What are the two or three best sources for demonstrating notability? The first three are not good enough, and I doubt the rest are worth careful examination. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak delete The Forbes article probably meets depth and
WP:RS guidelines, but the rest of the references are primary or press-release type stuff. Appearing on "Shark Tank" doesn't automatically make a business notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ohnoitsjamie: That Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per
WP:RSP.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 16:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The wiki should be kept. Obviously, needs some work for improvement but it has an encyclopedic knowledge which is always necessary in Wikipedia. If references are valid, verifiable and brings insight to the encyclopedia, there would be no causes for its deletion.
Wikizziola (
talk) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)— Wikizziola (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of DeportivoLara (
talk ·
contribs). reply
AFD is not cleanup, it is true, but existence does not mandate inclusion if the company is not notable per
WP:NCORP. It is not the number of or verifiability of the sources cite that matter, rather it is the quality and depth.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 05:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources are name-drops, interviews, routine news (Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't make the funding not routine given the sharks/dragons are investors as part of their day jobs), testimonials, or press releases to a one. There is nothing even remotely viable here for use as a source. —
A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 23:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a tiny and non-notable company, with mediocre references; routine "somebody got seed money" coverage and the like does not meet
WP:CORP, nor does an appearance on Shark Tank. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Shark Tank is the highest rated business television show on a major TV network. The company got the highest funding for a female entrepreneur. In my humble opinion, this should make you qualify for WP:CORP. I disagree that this funding is routine.
DeportivoLara (
talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC) —
DeportivoLara (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
And, to deal with your claims: So what? Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't do anything to confer notability, as it's essentially no different from making pitches to five separate potential investors. It's a glorified sales pitch, and cannot grant notability regardless of whether or not it was "the highest funding" because of this. —
A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is written from the company's standpoint, and any company can pay for an article written from its standpoint, and Wikipedia should continue to discourage paid editing. The coverage by independent
reliable sources is not significant and does not establish
corporate notability.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is one of two concurrent deletion discussions. See also
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The paid editors are persistent. The page that is currently in draft and at MFD was also created in article space by Neerajmadhuria72014, who is a paid editor. That copy was draftified three times, and promoted back to article space twice by Neera. This page was created in article space by Mohamed Ouda, and draftified by GSS, and then promoted back to article space by GSS in order to nominate it for this AFD.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"promoted back to article space by GSS" is a misreading, and "in order to nominate it for this AFD" is a serious allegation and not correct. I asked GSS to revert his draftification, for good reasons, which he did. That done, the appropriate thing to do is to nominate it at AfD. Repeated creation in mainspace means that the author does not want to use AfC, and to that the answer is AfD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe's rewording is better. It is correct that GSS, at SmokeyJoe's request not to move-war, reverted a draftification, and then used AFD as the right way to deal with the disruption by Neera and Ouda.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Can these two deletion discussions be rolled into one, somehow?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The MfD is subservient to this AfD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete irrespective of the REFSPAM going on in the subject article, there is a clear lack of in-depth, reliable coverage concerning the company. Despite 29 references, there remains only one source that is explicitly concerned with Everywell, and this source (Techcrunch) clearly frame's the company as being a start-up.
WP:NCORP and especially
WP:CORPDEPTH are not met by the large number of mentions-in-passing and press releases, which for the record do not confer undue notability per NCORP.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Small 3-year-old startup which comprehensively fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:CORPDEPTH, despite the plethora of "references" (aka
notability bombing) to name-checks and routine PR announcements and an obvious puff-piece in Forbes which was not written by their regular editorial staff. Also recommend Salt given the shenanigans in this article's history by obvious undeclared paid editors.
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete An obviously promotional article about a non-notable company. The various manipulative maneuvers in the history of this article are quite troubling, so I agree that it should be salted.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NCORP and lack of sources that can pass
WP:ORGCRITE. The Forbes article, is an interview of the founder, and is from a contributor who is a college student. Interviews are not Independent coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Poorly-sourced article does not meet
WP:NCORP.
Miniapolis 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete lots of sources, but they're also (Forbes is a good example) significantly weak.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not piling on, but wanted to leave an opinion about the sourcing and Shark Tank. There are a lot of source such as
CNN which on the surface look like in-depth news coverage, but once you break them down they are affiliated with the subject or
written by contributors. I treat Shark Tank investments independent of the show. By that I mean I like to see that the company has in-depth coverage outside of their appearance. I don't see that here. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 05:03, 21 January 2019 (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.
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. Fails
WP:NCORP due to sources being insufficiently reliable, independent, and/or significant in their coverage.
RL0919 (
talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. this is a notable company and appeared in many shows like
Shark TankMohamed Ouda (
talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Mohamed Ouda: I dropped a message on your talk page regarding paid editing, and you need to respond. Thank you –
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Mohamed Ouda, the topic is prone to promotion, and I think it fails
WP:CORP. It has been
WP:Reference bombed with a large number of low quality sources. What are the two or three best sources for demonstrating notability? The first three are not good enough, and I doubt the rest are worth careful examination. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak delete The Forbes article probably meets depth and
WP:RS guidelines, but the rest of the references are primary or press-release type stuff. Appearing on "Shark Tank" doesn't automatically make a business notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ohnoitsjamie: That Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per
WP:RSP.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 16:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The wiki should be kept. Obviously, needs some work for improvement but it has an encyclopedic knowledge which is always necessary in Wikipedia. If references are valid, verifiable and brings insight to the encyclopedia, there would be no causes for its deletion.
Wikizziola (
talk) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)— Wikizziola (
talk ·
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of DeportivoLara (
talk ·
contribs). reply
AFD is not cleanup, it is true, but existence does not mandate inclusion if the company is not notable per
WP:NCORP. It is not the number of or verifiability of the sources cite that matter, rather it is the quality and depth.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 05:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources are name-drops, interviews, routine news (Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't make the funding not routine given the sharks/dragons are investors as part of their day jobs), testimonials, or press releases to a one. There is nothing even remotely viable here for use as a source. —
A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 23:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is a tiny and non-notable company, with mediocre references; routine "somebody got seed money" coverage and the like does not meet
WP:CORP, nor does an appearance on Shark Tank. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Shark Tank is the highest rated business television show on a major TV network. The company got the highest funding for a female entrepreneur. In my humble opinion, this should make you qualify for WP:CORP. I disagree that this funding is routine.
DeportivoLara (
talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC) —
DeportivoLara (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
And, to deal with your claims: So what? Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't do anything to confer notability, as it's essentially no different from making pitches to five separate potential investors. It's a glorified sales pitch, and cannot grant notability regardless of whether or not it was "the highest funding" because of this. —
A little blue Boriv^_^vBori! 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is written from the company's standpoint, and any company can pay for an article written from its standpoint, and Wikipedia should continue to discourage paid editing. The coverage by independent
reliable sources is not significant and does not establish
corporate notability.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is one of two concurrent deletion discussions. See also
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The paid editors are persistent. The page that is currently in draft and at MFD was also created in article space by Neerajmadhuria72014, who is a paid editor. That copy was draftified three times, and promoted back to article space twice by Neera. This page was created in article space by Mohamed Ouda, and draftified by GSS, and then promoted back to article space by GSS in order to nominate it for this AFD.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"promoted back to article space by GSS" is a misreading, and "in order to nominate it for this AFD" is a serious allegation and not correct. I asked GSS to revert his draftification, for good reasons, which he did. That done, the appropriate thing to do is to nominate it at AfD. Repeated creation in mainspace means that the author does not want to use AfC, and to that the answer is AfD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe's rewording is better. It is correct that GSS, at SmokeyJoe's request not to move-war, reverted a draftification, and then used AFD as the right way to deal with the disruption by Neera and Ouda.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Can these two deletion discussions be rolled into one, somehow?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The MfD is subservient to this AfD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete irrespective of the REFSPAM going on in the subject article, there is a clear lack of in-depth, reliable coverage concerning the company. Despite 29 references, there remains only one source that is explicitly concerned with Everywell, and this source (Techcrunch) clearly frame's the company as being a start-up.
WP:NCORP and especially
WP:CORPDEPTH are not met by the large number of mentions-in-passing and press releases, which for the record do not confer undue notability per NCORP.--
SamHolt6 (
talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Small 3-year-old startup which comprehensively fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:CORPDEPTH, despite the plethora of "references" (aka
notability bombing) to name-checks and routine PR announcements and an obvious puff-piece in Forbes which was not written by their regular editorial staff. Also recommend Salt given the shenanigans in this article's history by obvious undeclared paid editors.
Voceditenore (
talk) 16:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete An obviously promotional article about a non-notable company. The various manipulative maneuvers in the history of this article are quite troubling, so I agree that it should be salted.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NCORP and lack of sources that can pass
WP:ORGCRITE. The Forbes article, is an interview of the founder, and is from a contributor who is a college student. Interviews are not Independent coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Poorly-sourced article does not meet
WP:NCORP.
Miniapolis 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete lots of sources, but they're also (Forbes is a good example) significantly weak.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not piling on, but wanted to leave an opinion about the sourcing and Shark Tank. There are a lot of source such as
CNN which on the surface look like in-depth news coverage, but once you break them down they are affiliated with the subject or
written by contributors. I treat Shark Tank investments independent of the show. By that I mean I like to see that the company has in-depth coverage outside of their appearance. I don't see that here. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 05:03, 21 January 2019 (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.