- 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 Keep. Hut 8.5 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Basecamp (company) (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)
Article is written like a company leaflet and its feature. No significant coverage for specific products. The article more about the founder and people related to organization. Seems like founder or its associate made this page for credible appearance. Books are mentioned from the author, does not relate to credibility point of view but promotions. References cites only does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They're pretty well-known as a company so I'd expect there to be sourcing, but the sources presented are terrible ... at present it's TNT material - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per WP:ARTN. Plenty of WP:RS establish WP:GNG. Whether or not these sources are currently in the article (and a number of them are) is not the question--the question is whether such sources exist, and they do. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be 100% more convincing if you actually presented any instead of merely asserting their existence - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources described above, as well . The nominator User:Light2021 is strongly encouraged to SLOW DOWN and re-read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability before they again become disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as argued above. For the record, as article creator, I am not an "associate" of anyone at the firm, although we have mutual acquaintances in common. I created the article as I was investigating Ruby on Rails development for my own ends. Given its importance, especially in the 00s, as a web development platform, it seems nonsensical that this article should not exist or be sourceable. I don't see anything unduly promotional in the pre-AfD article, although yes, it ended up being a laundry list of products in the deprecated 'brochure' genre. It's been a long time since I could actively edit here at the project. I hope the edits undertaken since nomination will suffice to pass muster. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that WP:BEFORE was not undertaken prior to this nomination. Specifically, point C says that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This article was easily fixed through normal editing. It should have been tagged for improvement rather than nominated for deletion. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actually as this is still PR-based advertising even if it is notable, because the article contains namedrops and consistently shown information about how Jeff Bezos invested it; if anyone thinks this is improvable, it should be Drafted, not kept at the current mainspace where chances are slimmer of it being improved. Another thing is that the sources listed themselves consist of announcements, such as the TechCrunch "37 Signals", that was hardly journalism if it was simply compiled information. The first link listed here is not an article stating what the company's and businessperson's plans are, but it's an actual interview. Yes, I see that the company has 2 products listed, and they have their own article, but that's not a sole convincing statement of this automatically staying. Containing any close forms and attempts at advertising is damaging to this website and what it signifies. The Wired article itself contains not only PR-speak but something that only the company and its PR agents would say, "BaseCamp will change how think!". SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is "PR-based advertising even if it is notable", then fix it. Make some edits yourself, or tag the article and start a discussion about your concerns on the article talk page. But AFD is for establishing notability, not for fixing perceived issues with promotional language. Everyone here, even you, seems to agree the company is notable. It's a waste of the community's time to hem-and-haw here. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What I stated was the concerns of PR and advertising beyond the mere expected thoughts it would actually be improved, there's noticeable history and other cases of articles that were not improved at all even though pegged for it; simply letting that happen is not fixing anything, so what I said was if the company is notable, it's best Drafted if at all to allow these improvements, not simply let the article stay where it is, and hope for it. Essentially suggesting "tag it [for improvements] or start mentioning them at the talk page" is also then saying "Well, let's peg the thoughts for them and hope they actually happen". There's also no "perceived" PR concerns if I stated them above as I have with any other PR article, sourced by PR itself. These concerns were stated at the nomination also. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 20 September 2016 (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.