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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a rationale per comment on my talk. The majority of votes were for delete and this was the case even looking at the set of votes that came in after Cunard added his sources. Given his assiduousness in finding sources and the fact that the editors who commented after rejected his sourcing the delete arguments are clearly the ones founded most closely on policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial piece that I could find that would count towards the GNG is the cited piece in the Guardian. The rest of the coverage is your standard press release churn from trade pubs, Tech Crunch (not an RS). The Telegraph piece is both a trivial mention and a primary source as it is based on quotes from the CEO of the company and isn't independent. On the whole, I don't see a GNG pass either from a BEFORE search or based on the sourcing in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are numerous reliable sources with the company as the main focus, such as Publishers Weekly, Popular Science, The Evening Standard. TechCrunch is a reliable source which covers Reedsy in-depth here and here. It gets a full article treatment in Forbes magazine. Previous discussion about a COI issue are of no relevance here. Easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we go: Popular Science that article from is basically a "how to self-publish" guide and not coverage of the subject: it is mentioned briefly as an option for self-publishing among other options. The Publishers Weekly text is pretty standard industry coverage which we typically don't count towards notability. The Evening Standard piece is tips from the founder of the company on how to self-publish, which is certainly not independent and would make it a primary source. The Forbes piece is actually worse than the Guardian model that Iridescent commented on below, because Forbes Contributors are what Forbes calls the people who use their platform to blog. There is no editorial oversight, and we don't count it towards notability for AfDs typically. As for TechCrunch, in the past year, I've never seen an AfD consider it a reliable source for notability purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Publishers Weekly doesn't count toward notability. Seriously? Publishers Weekly is the dominant source in the publishing industry. Period. It devoted an entire article on Reedsy. Forbes, Evening Standard, The Guardian et al all devoted serious attention to Reedsy, and all have editorial oversight; their reputations will all suffer if they print untrue stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes doesn't have editorial oversight for their contributors. They did not devote a full article. A blogger did. Publishers Weekly did give it brief coverage, yes, and it is certainly a reliable source. The question becomes whether it was intellectually independent, which I think it's fair to say it wasn't. The article is a short blurb that was likely based on material provided by the firm. Iri has already addressed theGuardian below. The Evening Standard piece was written as tips from the CEO: that's both primary and not intellectually independent. Intellectual independence from the company is what we require in sourcing, and I see virtually none here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable publication such as Forbes or Publishers Weekly or TechCrunch has a reputation to protect. That's vital for them. Regardless of how they get their news, they're not going to publish junk or untrue stuff since doing so would risk their reputation. In that sense, they're all exercising editorial oversight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TonyBallioni: In context, I wouldn't consider the Guardian one a reliable source either; the Guardian operates an "open citizen journalism" model under which anyone can contribute (it's not Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" as they do still maintain some degree of editorial control and vet out the most blatant crap), and this particular Citizen Journalist appears to do nothing but write puff-pieces for the e-reader industry. (No keep/delete from me as this is really not a topic about which I care, although I'll note in passing that I've rarely seen an article that looks more like an obvious piece of spam padded out with dubious sources to make it look legit.) ‑ Iridescent17:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Guardian is a credible source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained to you above, while its news coverage is written by real journalists and constitutes a reliable source, its other sections are based on an "open journalism" model in which anyone can submit an article, and are no more reliable than Buzzfeed. (As for the notion that the present-day Evening Standard—which was once a legitimate newspaper but is now a ridiculous Russian rag given out free to passers-by at railway stations—constitutes a reliable source for anything, words fail me.) ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian -- arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain-- printed the article on Reedsy. That the writer was a freelance journalist specializing in e-commerce is irrelevant. The Guardian printed it. It's a reliable source. I'm less sure about Evening Standard but the numerous other sources clearly suggest Reedsy is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain—where on earth are you getting that from? Even the Grauniad itself wouldn't claim that, and in terms of public trust it consistently polls below Wikipedia itself. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon, according to the sources they haven't done anything yet. It's a startup, we need to wait until they actually accomplish something. "A collaborative editing tool will launch over the summer. After that, Reedsy will, inevitably, start publishing." - that was 2.5 years ago - what has actually happened? The Guardian article is not the quality I expected - is this a new model? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that can be helpful, here's a long list of articles on our AngelList Page, that mention Reedsy. Here's also another one in The Guardian and one in BBC World News. Feel free to do your own due diligence but please don't disregard too quickly a company that's actually providing the best product for indie authors on the market. I decided to create a dedicated page after the company was included in the self-publishing page. Many thanks,Neguev_(talk) 11:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian source is from an open journalism freelancer as Iri pointed out above. AngeList is your own social media. BBC World News video (not text article) is an interview with you, which makes it a primary source and non-independent source, which we don't count towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the company exists, but have not accomplished anything of significance or notability just yet. Nom's analysis of sources is compelling. Guardian for example is from a freelance author. What's in the article belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No depth here, just coverage you'd expect for a small services company. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Baddeley, Anna (2005-05-18). "Reedsy could offer self-published authors a professional edge". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Publishing startup Reedsy is shaking things up with a marketplace where independent authors can connect with talented freelance editors, designers and publicists.
  Since opening its doors last November, it now has 3,000 authors signed up, and a pool of 300 freelancers. Unlike some other freelancing sites, quality control is fundamental: out of 6,000 applications, only those with the most glittering CVs were spared the trash folder.
  The main thing that sets Reedsy apart from the many companies offering “author services” is its platform. This is a tech company first and foremost; its USP a lean, highly usable interface that draws inspiration from the blogging platform Medium.
  The article is written by Anna Baddeley, who is both a freelance writer for publications like The Guardian and digital editor for 1843, a publication of the Economist Group. Because of her role at the Economist Group, I consider her a serious and reputable journalist.
2. Reid, Calvin (2015-01-02). "Reedsy Debuts Skills Market, Plans Curated Imprint". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Reedsy is a self-publishing startup that currently offers its users access to a marketplace of skilled freelance book-production professionals. Beginning in spring 2015, however, the site will debut an online collaborative-editing tool on the platform, and there are also plans for a curated Reedsy book imprint.
  Based in the U.K., Reedsy launched in September with a skills exchange that gives writers access to a selection of vetted professional book editors and designers. And beginning in March 2015, cofounder Ricardo Fayet said, the company plans to launch an online writing/editing platform that will help writers and editors collaborate on manuscripts. The Reedsy online editing tool provides version control for editorial changes and an internal email and payment system that allows the writer and editorial/production support team to collaborate on the manuscript entirely within the Reedsy platform—no external email needed. Once a manuscript is completed, Reedsy’s editorial tool will convert the manuscript into ePub or Mobi file formats.
  ...
  Reedsy makes money by collecting 10% of the fee paid in hiring from the skills exchange—about 60 editing and design referrals have been made to date. Eight hundred writers currently use Reedsy. Fayet also said the site is working to create partnerships with Kickstarter and PubSlush to offer crowdfunding support to authors who need funding.
  This article provides detailed coverage about Reedsy's history and product.
3. Reid, Calvin (2016-02-26). "Reedsy Grows, Launches Online Book Editor Tool". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in late 2014, Reedsy is a U.K.-based self-publishing venture that launched with a professional skills marketplace as well as plans to offer an online editing and collaboration tool sometime in 2015. Although it's taken a bit longer to develop the editing technology, the company has launched the Reedsy Book Editor, a free online authoring tool that allows writers to format their books online.
  Reedsy cofounder Ricardo Fayet said traffic is growing on the site—more than 7,000 authors have registered as users. Reedsy has also entered into partnerships with IngramSpark and Kobo Writing Life to offer their clients editing services via the Reedsy Book Editor.
4. Anderson, Porter (2014-09-06). "Reedsy: Bending into digital self-publishing". The Bookseller. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  In the graphics for Reedsy, you sometimes spot "cattails," as we call them in the sea islands of South Carolina. Reeds.
  And so, one goes into an interview here hoping that the cutesy name for this new company isn't the misspelling of "read" that one worries it just could be.
  Big relief: "The name is meant to refer to reeds," says chief operating officer Ricardo Fayet when pinned down on the matter.
  ...
  Reedsy was founded just this year. Since May, they've been with micro-seed investment fund Seedcamp, which is backing them in a 50-50 split with DC Thomson Ventures.
  ...
  Only time will tell whether the ability to search out such freelance service providers on a site like Reedsy, talk over a project, haggle over price, and do a deal will get writers past the "yes but I can't find one" stage. The organiser of an autumn conference of traditionally published authors told me that many of the membership feel clueless when it comes to finding their own editors, designers, marketers and translators for self-publishing efforts.
5. Flatt, Molly (2015-10-29). "BookTech Showcase: Reedsy". The Bookseller. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Reedsy was founded only in the spring of 2014 but this curated marketplace for publishing professionals is already making waves. After receiving 7,000 initial applications, the platform now boasts more than 300 professional freelance designers, editors and marketers, many of whom come from big-name houses and some of whom have worked with the likes of Ken Follett, Neil Gaiman, George RR Martin, Stephen King and Jodi Picoult. The charismatic Nataf’s media instincts have seen glowing writeups appear in The Guardian, TechCrunch and Forbes.
  Services added since launch include an interface that streamlines the book production workflow; another that allows publishers to manage multiple projects in one place; and the company is also about to release a free collaborative book editing tool.
6. Bennett, Madeline (2017-11-09). "How collaborative tools and cloud computing help firms' success". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-11-25. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Reedsy, meanwhile, is an online platform that helps authors to get their books published. Since 2014, the start-up has built a network of more than 50,000 authors and publishing professionals, matching them up to work on relevant projects.
  This model has already produced thousands of books and Reedsy’s founders say part of its success is down to its workplace model based on freelancers and flexible working. “Reedsy is a completely officeless business: while our community of freelance professionals lives across 600 cities, the Reedsy team hails from more than 10 countries,” says co-founder Emmanuel Nataf.
  Though this article is not significant coverage, I am including it here to answer editors' assertions that Reedsy has not accomplished anything. The article notes that Reedsy since its founding in 2014 has produced thousands of books and matched 50,000 authors and publishing professionals.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reedsy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per the Reflist and Cunard's list. With that said it does read a little promo and could be edited, but that's cleanup not delete. -- GreenC 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cunard's sourcing, per usual, comes nowhere close to meeting any of the guidelines in WP:N, WP:RS, or WP:ORG, and most have been addressed by editors above. Most of them are also WP:SPIP. Simply copying and pasting recycled press releases into AfD debates doesn't not in fact meet the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence these sources are copying and pasting press releases? That should be easy to prove. Just saying it doesn't make it true.. -- GreenC 15:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll go through them one-by-one.

Source 6 is an interview with the CEO: this does not count towards the GNG because it is a primary source that is not independent of the subject, failing both WP:N and WP:ORGIND. The parts Cunard cited were the lead up sentences to the interview.

Source 4, when read in context, is the same thing. Quotes from the CEO and filler sentences in between the quotes with marketing language. It is highly likely that this was either taken from a corporate fact sheet that the CEO brought with him or that the author paraphrased him. Also a primary source and failure of ORGIND. Also appears to be a blog post that is part of a series where they interview startups. Literally every startup on the planet could find similar coverage because this is part of the business plan these days.

Source 5 is by the same publisher as source 4, and has similar issues. It also appears to be a blogpost.

Publishers Weekly, while a reliable source for verifying information is not always a reliable source for confirming notability: it is still trade press and trade press often relies on information provided directly by the company with little editorial oversight. We normally exclude these per ORGIND.

Source 2: same author, so lacks intellectual independence from Source 3 even if we accept that source 3 meets ORGIND. This only counts as one source per WP:N.

We have already been over the first source, which is arguably the strongest. Iridescent has explained the practice here, but I will go ahead and discuss Cunard's rebuttal: the context of someone's work as a freelancer depends on the specific publication and what they are doing there. She might be reputable as a whole, but decide as a freelancer that she wants to publish stories solely on small startups in the UK and go around asking them for press release information to quickly write articles so she can get paid. This is a normal practice in this field, because it is beneficial to all parties. Iridescent has already looked at the articles published for the Guardian , which makes this very likely. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the sources. For example Source 6, 4 & 5 is a journalistic article with a signed author published in a reliable source. Does it quote someone? Yes, but what journalistic piece doesn't? That's how journalism works. Even Wikipedia has quotes by people. When I think of an interview piece, it's where the entire conversation is pasted verbatim, unlike this piece that has original reportage and selected quotes integrated into the journalists writing. Any journalist worth their pay is going to interview someone from the company they are reporting about. For Publishers Weekly, I've never heard of that being excluded from AfD, as something "we normally do".. I've been doing AfD's for 8 years and never heard that before. Finally the idea that a piece is simply rehashing a press release is just an opinion without evidence. Sure that happens, but it doesn't mean it happened here, it can be proven if it can be shown the content is just a rehash of a press release and doesn't contain original reportage.. -- GreenC 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the original source of 4&5? Not the archive link but the actual source? They are blog posts. I disagree on everything else, but those can’t possibly be qualified as journalism by even the loosest standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "blog" doesn't always mean unreliable when it's part of a series like this. 4 is by Porter Anderson who is "a career journalist" and "Editor-in-Chief of Publishing Perspectives, a news magazine focused on the international book publishing scene and founded in 2009 by Frankfurt Book Fair New York". He seems pretty reliable. Molly Flatt is also a professional journalist and Associate Editor at The Memo and Digital Editor at PHOENIX magazine, which seems like a reliable writer also. That these leading professionals in the industry found the company notable enough to comment on seems, well, Notable. -- GreenC 17:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are lacking in independence and depth, which is a reflection of the company's low notability. Even the Guardian piece is pretty shallow. The subject fails WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this has any encyclopedis value outside of corporate spam. Trampton (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with most of the comments by GreenC and others above about the various questionable arguments being used to disqualify various sources. We have: charges of PR recycling without specific evidence that that has really happened here; dismissal of pieces by professional journalists as blog posts despite their credentials and history; rejection of Publishers Weekly out of hand; and, I would add, dismissal of Anna Baddeley's work because of the inadequately evidenced claim that her pieces on the e-book industry are "puff pieces". This one, at least, is openly skeptical of the strategy the company in question is using, and hardly looks like a "puff piece" to me.

I'll grant the deletion advocates this much: some of the sources (e.g., the Telegraph) do appear to be lacking in independence due to excessive reliance on company personnel, ascertainable from the sources' own text. Also, the depth does leave something to be desired. But IMO it is over the threshold, and cannot be pushed below it without using the above-mentioned questionable claims to dismiss the remaining sources.

I was able to find only one source not already referenced here:

Conrad, Kathryn M. (2017). "Public libraries as publishers: critical opportunity". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 20 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0020.106. Archived from the original on 2017-11-27. Retrieved 2017-11-27.

This article refers to Reedsy as a source for information on the cost of various aspects of self-publishing (copyediting, proofreading, professional cover design). Not exactly an aside, since the information is used to support the author's main line of argument. Admittedly not much depth either. But IMO depth is already adequate from existing sources.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thank Cunard for the hard work of searching for sources. On a broad look, the sources seem to be fine. However, I am convinced by the rebuttals by TonyBallioni who has taken a deeper look at the sources. One thing is clear that that company has not created any outstanding product which has garnered attention. The sources either quote company personally or excessively rely on them. Multiple articles by the same author are counted as a single source. The series on startups are essentially designed to inform the public about currently non-notable firms. It is not about already notable companies. The sources all seem like the flurry of sources companies try to get out when seeking publicity. Going for a delete here.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment "that company has not created any outstanding product" -- it's a service firm, not a consumer goods maker. Its service is connecting authors with vetted publishing freelancers (editors/ cover designers/ proofreaders etc) -- that's what it does -- and it plays an important role in the increasingly important Self-publishing market. Reedsy is one of the two big players (the other is Bibliocrunch). All firms seek publicity; that this firm succeeded in getting publicity in respectable publications indicates notability, not the opposite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are a self publishing firm - this means they are merely doing their job - self publishing on others reputable outlets. The refs are useless. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tony has it right, the only suitable source is the Guardian piece, everything else is a trivial passing mention, and the prose brought up by Cunard looks like stereotypical marketing buzzword bingo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (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.