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. Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slidebean[edit]

Slidebean (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)

Promotional article on non-notable software. The references are PR or notices-, or placements on a list Some of them, such as the one on "500 startups" are straightforward advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One assessment of sources in the article. It's a mixed bag: there's some borderline-significant, but pretty redundant, coverage from presumably reliable sources with named authors, though their editorial standards are not readily checked. A Latin American editor may be able to speak to the reliability of the Spanish-language sources, but on balance, the topic probably weakly meets GNG. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
TechCrunch 1			~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software	~ Partial
TheNextWeb	Presumed	? Article is an outside contribution whose views are disclaimed by the publication; reliability of the author is not established		? Unknown
La Nacion (archived)	Presumed	Presumed	~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software	~ Partial
Bloomberg			Just an index entry for the company	✘ No
Ethos3	Presumed	? Publication is another company in the presentation field, so conflict of interest is a possibility	For the software, not the company	? Unknown
Hongkiat	Presumed	Presumed	For the software, not the company	✔ Yes
El Financiero	Presumed	Presumed	~ Brief coverage of software; very little about company	~ Partial
Frenchweb	Presumed	Presumed	~	~ Partial
500.co	Ad copy written by the company itself			✘ No
Crunchbase	? Source of data and editing process are not clear	?	Good detail on finances and personnel	? Unknown
Success in Business podcast	Presumed	Presumed	The business is the central topic of a 15-minute interview	✔ Yes
TechCrunch 2			~ Pretty minimal	~ Partial
Slidebean 1	Company's own website			✘ No
TechCrunch 3			More in-depth coverage of both software and company	✔ Yes
Slidebean 2	Company's own website			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

—swpb^{T go beyond} 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thank you all for the thorough review of sources and reliability. As of now, there are 3 sources that are have been concluded as reliable enough to meet GNG requirements. I would argue that the TheNextWeb source meet those same standards. The reporter, Anna Heim, (https://thenextweb.com/author/annaheim/) while an independent writer now, has 100+ news articles on TNW and published several times a week from 2011 to 2015. —jpczcaya^{T 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete Crunchbase is basically a database sort of thing - not independant. An interview is not useful as it is not independent; hongkat is a blog; "techcruch 3" only has what the company says about themselves. No good sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also Swpb, for future reference, Tech Crunch is not considered an independent or reliable source for purposes of notability. It is routinely ignored in every deletion discussion I've been in for at least the past year. I haven't really seen any argumentation in favour of counting it since late 2016. Same with Crunchbase. The interview in a podcast is a non-independent primary source as well. Some of the other sources you have checked off as meeting the GNG also appear to be non-reliable or user generated. Anyway, from review of that table, I see nothing that meets the GNG. BEFORE doesn't yield anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor TonyBallioni: Wikipedia:Interviews disagrees with that as a blanket rule. I don't know for a fact that this interviewer is independent, but there's no evidence they're not, and that's where the burden lies – unless you can show that this interviewer has a specific conflict relating to this subject, they are assumed independent. As for TC, could you point to the discussion about its use toward GNG? I don't put much weight in statements of the form "we just don't trust this source" with no justification given, and I don't think a closer would either. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swpb: unfortunately, the notability guideline disagrees with you. It requires secondary sourcing, which interviews are definitionally not. The essay you site does not have the force of policy, and even if it did WP:ORGIND would apply. Interviews have zero weight in AfD discussions, unless they are subject to coverage in reliable secondary sourcing afterwards (the interview of Sarah Palin by Katie Couric being an example of when an interview leads to secondary coverage). Any active AfD closer will know that TC is ignored here. I don't think there have been any formal discussions on it, but even the most radical inclusionists have stopped trying to pretend it is anything other than recycled press releases. Basically, your analysis of the sourcing in the table above is far outside the mainstream of most AfD sourcing analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To editor TonyBallioni: Repeating things doesn't make them true – the letter of WP:ORGIND does not support you. Your position on interviews is simply not the consensus position. If it were, you'd be able to show it. Unless this interview was produced by or with the funding of this company, it is independent. Reliability could be questioned, but that's a separate criterion. No one is taking your "delete" vote away from you, but you do not get to make up your own guidance and insist we're all bound by it. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, it is the consensus position, and that (non-policy) essay does in fact support it, especially for this sourcing. The text of ORGIND does actually support what I say: it does not require it to be funded, it excludes any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it. That quite clearly includes interviews (even though they are spoken). Your views are far outside of the normal consensus here, and the closer should ignore them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have interesting definitions of "written by" and "quite clearly", but more importantly, waaay too much emotional investment in this right now. I'm not dying on this hill – everyone can read the guidelines for themselves. Take the hint: go outside, and slow your righteousness roll by about 47 notches. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to discuss me personally. I'm not emotionally invested in this at all. I only pinged you because you seemed unsure of your analysis and I was trying to let you know how the sourcing is typically viewed in AfDs (which along with the Wikimodel are organic, so have no need for an RfC when something simply becomes the usual practice). If you don't appreciate this, I'm sorry. The closer is free to review as they see fit, but interviews, recycled press releases, and the like don't count towards our inclusion criteria, where in practice we require intellectual independence, not just organizational. The sourcing here fails that, so the article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I like that you can't imagine you could be talking to someone with comparable experience to you. No, this must be my first AfD, and you're here to do me a favor. Right. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promotional article on a nn software / company. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NSOFT. Sources listed above are insufficient. "Success in Business podcast" is an interview / possibly paid placement, while TechCrunch is so indiscriminate as to not qualify for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2018 (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.