Next Insurance – Deletion(s) endorsed. Editors are free to create a new draft and submit it to review. Sandstein 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Next Insurance (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This article was published when the company was young and failed the notability test. I can't see the history of this article, but as far as I understand, it was poorly written without sufficient citations. The company grow significantly since then and is now considered to be a List_of_unicorn_startup_companies raised over 600 million USD. The company has multiple significant, independent, and reliable coverage by the media, which makes it suitable candidate to join the article space again. I would like to work on this article and fix it so it would be able to return to the article space. As far as I understand MER-C deleted it and marked it as covert advertising. Another user, Effifuks, has recently asked to recover the article. This user works for the company and MER-C has raised concerns that the article would not be reliable and independent. I also understand the problem with covert advertising and using Wikipedia as a platform for this. However, the company is now significant and has a lot of coverage, so I believe it makes sense to consider it again. Full disclosure, I virtually know Effifuks, as I listen to his Podcast, but another than that I'm not connected in any way shape or form to Next Insurance, and I have no personal or commercial/financial interest to help. Delbarital (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (keep deleted). No sign that this company passes WP:CORP. It is a Unicorn (finance), which explains the persistent promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] User:SmokeyJoe, Thanks for the comment. I added some references for the notability. I'm not sure why in your view the size of the company works against it. Furthermore, similar companies have articles about them (Root Insurance Company, Hippo_(company), Metromile, Lemonade, Inc.). Delbarital (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Question - What is being appealed or requested here? User:SmokeyJoe says to Endorse, or Keep Deleted, and I agree if this is a request to undelete, but it isn't clear what is being asked. Is this an appeal of the G11, to undelete the original delete article? No way. Is this a request to unsalt, to allow re-creation? That is what I am guessing it is, but that would bypass the issue of covert advertising by permitting open advertising instead. The title is currently salted in article space, but is not salted in draft space. The paid editor is already free to create a draft and submit it for review. If the reviewer agrees that it passes corporate notability, then and only then can we consider unsalting in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] I request to move deleted article to my userspace, let me edit it and make sure it stands in the standards of notability, and then submit the draft for review. I actually don't know if the previous user that edited the article was paid or not, but this user will not be related to my attempt to recreate the article. Delbarital (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the salting in article space, because the paid editor is still free to create and submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] The relevant user is not in the picture. I want to create this article as a draft and submit it for review, but as far as I understand I need to get a permission first because it was salted. Delbarital (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] That is not quite correct, Delbarital The title is not protected in draft space (or user space), and so you are free to create Draft:Next Insurance without any special permission. It is true that if a reviewer were to approve it, that reviewer would need to be, or get help from, and admin to move it to article space. It is also true that some AfC reviewers will not approve an article if the title is protected in the main article space. If this discussion were to approve your doing so, you could link to it and that might help convince a reviewer to consider a draft on its own merits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] So right after I opened a new draft for the article, it was already tagged as potential self promotion. I understand the fear, but I only opened the article's draft in my userspace and started to fill the infobox details. This doesn't make any sense. Delbarital (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Versions of this article were created by at least two different editors (or at least two different accounts) now both blocked. At least one additional now blocked account edited it. Do you, Delbarital have any connection with the company or any of those previous editors? In particular, are you being paid by Next Insurance in any way? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi DES, I do not have any connections to Next Insurance. I virtually know one of the VPs, as I listen to his Podcast, but I don't know him personally. I never worked for the company, they never offered me a job and I never applied for a job there. I do not get paid by Next Insurance or anyone else. I never got anything for editing other than the joy of contributing to Wikipedia or helping others. For many years I've contributed to the Hebrew Wikipedia and I was, and still am, an advocate against paying editors or self-promotion. Delbarital (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Lookin g at the version from 14 September 2020, that was largely supported by sources that were either not indepndent (based on interviews and press releases) not reliable (from a Forbes contributor, not staff), not including substantial coverage, or a mix of those. That version should certainly not be restored to the main article space, nor anything similar to that version. However, I think it likely that this company either is, or soon will become, notable. Thefoe I suggest that we allow creation of a new version in draft or uerspace. Technically, DRV permission is not needed for this, as the title is protected only in the main article space, as far asa i can see. But I think it would add comfort for both the creating editor and any possible AfC reviewer if we did explicitly confirm that permission. However the various deletions should be endorsed, without prejudice to a new and better version. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, allow creation of draft and evaluate. I (independently) agree with DES (except I didn't actually see the 14 Sept version). My quick hunt for sources did not immediately surface enough substantive and independent enough to overturn, but the recent (since 14 Sept) closed funding round and size of company make me strongly suspect it will attract that attention soon. So -- unless someone points out significant RS sources now -- I don't think we can overturn yet, but it's worth working on if someone wants to. The prior COI issues will require some care before moving to main space, but previous COI does not mean others without a COI can't take over. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for all the comments. After I read the old article and I compeltly agree that it was written almost as an ad. I will write a new draft and keep it in my userspace, then I'll submit it for review. No need to continue the discussion as I agree that the old article should not be recovered (that wasn't what I asked for anyways...). Thanks again for your time and comments. Best Delbarital (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Next Insurance – Deletion(s) endorsed. Editors are free to create a new draft and submit it to review. Sandstein 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was published when the company was young and failed the notability test. I can't see the history of this article, but as far as I understand, it was poorly written without sufficient citations. The company grow significantly since then and is now considered to be a List_of_unicorn_startup_companies raised over 600 million USD. The company has multiple significant, independent, and reliable coverage by the media, which makes it suitable candidate to join the article space again. I would like to work on this article and fix it so it would be able to return to the article space.

As far as I understand MER-C deleted it and marked it as covert advertising. Another user, Effifuks, has recently asked to recover the article. This user works for the company and MER-C has raised concerns that the article would not be reliable and independent. I also understand the problem with covert advertising and using Wikipedia as a platform for this. However, the company is now significant and has a lot of coverage, so I believe it makes sense to consider it again.

Full disclosure, I virtually know Effifuks, as I listen to his Podcast, but another than that I'm not connected in any way shape or form to Next Insurance, and I have no personal or commercial/financial interest to help. Delbarital (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (keep deleted). No sign that this company passes WP:CORP. It is a Unicorn (finance), which explains the persistent promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe, Thanks for the comment. I added some references for the notability. I'm not sure why in your view the size of the company works against it. Furthermore, similar companies have articles about them (Root Insurance Company, Hippo_(company), Metromile, Lemonade, Inc.). Delbarital (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is being appealed or requested here? User:SmokeyJoe says to Endorse, or Keep Deleted, and I agree if this is a request to undelete, but it isn't clear what is being asked. Is this an appeal of the G11, to undelete the original delete article? No way. Is this a request to unsalt, to allow re-creation? That is what I am guessing it is, but that would bypass the issue of covert advertising by permitting open advertising instead. The title is currently salted in article space, but is not salted in draft space. The paid editor is already free to create a draft and submit it for review. If the reviewer agrees that it passes corporate notability, then and only then can we consider unsalting in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I request to move deleted article to my userspace, let me edit it and make sure it stands in the standards of notability, and then submit the draft for review. I actually don't know if the previous user that edited the article was paid or not, but this user will not be related to my attempt to recreate the article. Delbarital (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the salting in article space, because the paid editor is still free to create and submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant user is not in the picture. I want to create this article as a draft and submit it for review, but as far as I understand I need to get a permission first because it was salted. Delbarital (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite correct, Delbarital The title is not protected in draft space (or user space), and so you are free to create Draft:Next Insurance without any special permission. It is true that if a reviewer were to approve it, that reviewer would need to be, or get help from, and admin to move it to article space. It is also true that some AfC reviewers will not approve an article if the title is protected in the main article space. If this discussion were to approve your doing so, you could link to it and that might help convince a reviewer to consider a draft on its own merits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So right after I opened a new draft for the article, it was already tagged as potential self promotion. I understand the fear, but I only opened the article's draft in my userspace and started to fill the infobox details. This doesn't make any sense. Delbarital (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of this article were created by at least two different editors (or at least two different accounts) now both blocked. At least one additional now blocked account edited it. Do you, Delbarital have any connection with the company or any of those previous editors? In particular, are you being paid by Next Insurance in any way? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES, I do not have any connections to Next Insurance. I virtually know one of the VPs, as I listen to his Podcast, but I don't know him personally. I never worked for the company, they never offered me a job and I never applied for a job there. I do not get paid by Next Insurance or anyone else. I never got anything for editing other than the joy of contributing to Wikipedia or helping others. For many years I've contributed to the Hebrew Wikipedia and I was, and still am, an advocate against paying editors or self-promotion. Delbarital (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin g at the version from 14 September 2020, that was largely supported by sources that were either not indepndent (based on interviews and press releases) not reliable (from a Forbes contributor, not staff), not including substantial coverage, or a mix of those. That version should certainly not be restored to the main article space, nor anything similar to that version. However, I think it likely that this company either is, or soon will become, notable. Thefoe I suggest that we allow creation of a new version in draft or uerspace. Technically, DRV permission is not needed for this, as the title is protected only in the main article space, as far asa i can see. But I think it would add comfort for both the creating editor and any possible AfC reviewer if we did explicitly confirm that permission. However the various deletions should be endorsed, without prejudice to a new and better version. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, allow creation of draft and evaluate. I (independently) agree with DES (except I didn't actually see the 14 Sept version). My quick hunt for sources did not immediately surface enough substantive and independent enough to overturn, but the recent (since 14 Sept) closed funding round and size of company make me strongly suspect it will attract that attention soon. So -- unless someone points out significant RS sources now -- I don't think we can overturn yet, but it's worth working on if someone wants to. The prior COI issues will require some care before moving to main space, but previous COI does not mean others without a COI can't take over. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. After I read the old article and I compeltly agree that it was written almost as an ad. I will write a new draft and keep it in my userspace, then I'll submit it for review. No need to continue the discussion as I agree that the old article should not be recovered (that wasn't what I asked for anyways...). Thanks again for your time and comments. Best Delbarital (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.