Remote (company): However, it doesn't seem like there is a significant change in the topic's notability.  I will tag all of the previous discussion's participants below.  UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging all previous (non-blocked, non-IP) AFD's participants: @ Chris troutman , Husond , Tony Fox , Oaktree b , Martinp , Scope creep , Jacona , DoubleCross , Serial Number 54129 , BusterD , Sportsfan 1234 , Gusfriend , Iskandar323 , Trey Maturin , Nil Einne , Girth Summit , Fakescientist8000 ,  and HighKing : in hopes they can see something better here than I can.  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Tech crunch articles are more about the company, but it's not a totally RS.  Rest is still funding announcements.  I still don't see enough sourcing about the company that isn't related to financing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as prior closer.  I saw this come through AfC this morning and had some concerns about a brand new editor creating a well-formed article, but only reviewed enough to say not a G4.  Will look into the sourcing during the discussion.  Star Mississippi 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Now that it's been pointed to me, It was clear I made an error mistakes in judging the notability of the topic.  Apologies folks.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Same usual mix of funding and valuation annoucements typical of a startup.  Fails WP:SIRS , WP:CORPDEPTH .  Its not changed much from the previous version as far I can see.  More of the same thing has been added if anything.  We can go through the first two blocks of references in detail if necessary, but to summarise, Ref 1, 6, 7,8,9,10, 11 are trivial funding annoucements.  Ref 2 is non-rs.  Ref 3,5 are PR, Ref 4, 9, 12 is valuation.  The rest are PR.  They all fails WP:SIRS in one way or another.  scope_creep Talk 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails NCORP and GNG.  All the cites are embarrassing churnalism .  I cannot understand why this company sent an employee to attempt this task on Wikipedia after a former admin could not manage it.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep (with thanks to UtherSRG for the ping, above).  Just as in the 1st AFD, I think the Techcrunch source is a good one, and there were and therefore still are enough others that are reliable (independent) and meaningful enough to be OK, though I haven't re-looked in the current excessive list of references to locate them.  I also think that we as a community have our "need to stop spam" filters set so high we do a crappy job covering companies, rejecting articles where similarly notable sports figures, TV shows, etc. sail through unchallenged.  All this leads me to Keep.  And yet: this is so clearly written with a PR perspective, so focused on unencyclopedic funding details (and yet over-referenced) that I don't see how we're going to get a reasonable article to arise from this and who will maintain it.  And so while I wrote "Clear keep" on the 1st AFD, I'm now watered down to a "Weak keep" only.  Martinp ( talk ) 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The guidelines for notable sports figures, TV shows, etc, are not the same as the standards set for companies which uses GNG/ WP:NCORP .  The TechCrunch articles all fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs.  HighKing ++ 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Our standards describe our practice, and I agree with you they seem to have developed to be different for companies than in other areas.  So many people, like you, claim an article in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent.  Yet a profile of a notable figure that would be equally based on an interview with the figure, and information provided by that figure's collaborators, would likely be deemed sufficiently independent because of the editorial effort put in by the author -- an effort likely very similar to that of the author of the article about a company.  I believe this is an inconsistency.  The biases underpinning it are indicated by the pejorative language that tends to come up in discussions, e.g. "churnalism", "regurgitate", "PR crap", "marketing spam" (I'm not casting aspersions at anyone specifically here, just what the tone of these discussions ends up being in general).  I speak up about when I feel strongly we're getting it wrong in a specific case, but I'm not going to argue this one, where it does seem we ultimately have very little to go on about this company than it own marketing collateral and funding information Martinp ( talk ) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just so that we're clear, yes, that is correct.  Our guidelines have particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company and if it is an "article in in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources , is insufficiently independent.".  That's the mechanism by which we ensure that companies are truly notable and not just good at marketing.  If they're notable, somebody, somewhere, will take the time to write something in-depth and original about them.  HighKing ++ 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Hi everyone!  I'm not sure how best to reply to all the comments but I really want to say thank you to everyone for the feedback and for spending the time and energy to look through the article and its sources.  I got really great help from the Article Wizard, the other available resources on Wiki, and referred to the Wiki pages and sources of Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides on how best to cite and write this article as neutrally as possible.  If there's anything else I could edit to help make a stronger case to keep the article, please let me know.  Ad Astra Per Asperaaa ( talk ) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ad Astra Per Asperaaa , the best thing you can do is point us to independent, reliable sources.  Read WP:SIRS first, it will help you understand what would be most helpful.  — Jacona ( talk ) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would highly implore you to point to reliable secondary sources that prove the notability of the subject.  It would be a shame for the article so fail, but it will do if it must.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 00:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to you and @ Jacona for the advice!  I'm grateful.  When I was writing this, I referred to that page, to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , and some other pages too.  Given it's my first time writing a Wiki article, I've also been referring to Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides, since they're in similar industries.  What I noticed was that there are parallels in the news articles and sources cited, where quite a number of the sources report on valuations and fundraising for these two companies, since that's the main issue of this article from the feedback so far.  I also notice that both those pages have press releases and their respective company websites as sources.  I'll keep looking and adding more notable and legit sources because I think that's crucial to this whole process, especially given my position.  Given my inexperience, and genuinely so, I would appreciate it if there's anyone that can help me understand how this article can be on equal standing with Deel (company) and Gusto (company) .  Ad Astra Per Asperaaa ( talk ) 09:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  They all rely on announcements or other regurgitated company information, fails WP:ORGIND .  HighKing ++ 21:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I may be the odd man out here, but based on multiple coverage in well known publications such as Techcrunch, VentureBeat, Business Insider, Reuters, etc they meet WP:NCORP.  Although some of the articles sound like announcements, they go in detail about the company's services and operations.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, "coverage in well known publications" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability.  Nonetheless, you say they meet NCORP.  Please point to any specific paragraph in any of those sources (or any other sources you can find) which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content .  Note "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  HighKing ++ 21:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The company name makes searching for significant coverage challenging.  Of the presented sources, I don't see one of them which directly details anything about the business.  Just fund-raising and principals.  It's clear there's some capital behind the project, but the corporation hasn't garnered any descriptive press about itself, even in routine business news.  I don't see any basis for a keep outcome here.  There's no claim of notability whatsoever.  BusterD ( talk ) 15:04, 25 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete