Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluevine

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluevine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are generally funding news, interviews and routine business annoucements. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a source review per WP:NCORP:
- the most cited source in the article, State incentive plan goes out with a bang in year that saw tax breaks draw 10,000 new jobs (Desert News, 2019) is trivial coverage of a planned expansion and a capital transaction announced by the company, followed by "Eyal Lifshitz, CEO and co-founder of BlueVine, said", which fails WP:ORGIND. The source is about a "state tax rebate program for businesses" and only briefly mentions BlueVine, so additionally fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The next most-cited sources are BlueVine's CEO Explains How Tech Is Changing the Factoring World (Inc, 2019), which is a Q&A interview that might as well be a press release due to a lack of independent secondary coverage about the company (the intro includes "BlueVine, according to its website,") so it lacks WP:ORGIND and is WP:PROMO, and there is trivial coverage of the company as an example of a type of company or product being discussed in The New Invoice Financing: Online Players BlueVine, Fundbox And C2FO Are Transforming The Market (Forbes, 2015), which is based on "Lifshitz says", "Lifshitz says", "Lifshitz says", "says BlueVine’s Lifshitz" and "he says", similar to quotes from people connected to other companies used as examples of invoice financing in the source, so this fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Other sources in the article include trivial coverage of announcements of capital transaction[s], such as raised capital, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", and a WP:FORBESCON source.
- This article also places a source (PPP Scammers Made Fintech Companies Their Lenders of Choice, Bloomberg, 2020) out of chronological order to state "there was no evidence that lenders broke the rules or were accused of any wrongdoing" after this: Congress opens investigation into BlueVine and Kabbage after reports of PPP fraud (Business Insider, 2021).
- There is more recent brief coverage, e.g. 'Biggest fraud in a generation': The looting of the Covid relief plan known as PPP (NBC News Mar. 28, 2022 (BlueVine statement: "it used “robust compliance” [...] it was “regrettable” that the government’s loan programs were “abused by bad actors … despite our best efforts.”), and U.S. lawmakers say some fintechs failed to prevent 'obvious' pandemic fraud (Reuters/Yahoo, Dec. 1, 2022) that includes "the committee observed that Bluevine’s lending partner, Celtic Bank, conducted oversight of Bluevine’s anti-fraud controls and prompted the fintech to introduce manual review processes, after which it observed a steep decline in fraud" and quotes from BlueVine and Celtic spokespeople; the Congressional report is available here.
Per the WP:ILLCON section of WP:NCORP, It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline, and for this subject, it appears the only in-depth and independent coverage is the Congressional investigation. An online search otherwise finds press releases and more trivial coverage, so this article should be deleted as WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC) - comment revised for format/copyedit Beccaynr (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep notable company prior to the PPP loan thing Andre🚐 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of articles in Google News. CNBC: Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine There's even an article about the best alternatives to Bluevine[1]. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine source in CNBC is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and it is substantially based on "BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com" ("Terms aren’t being disclosed"), "The two firms haven't yet worked out a commercial partnership, but they're already exploring various ways they can work together, said Arvind Purushotham, managing director at Citi Ventures", a discussion of other banks, a 2-graf description of BlueVine, "said Purushotham", two more sentences about BlueVine, "Purushotham said", a discussion of another deal by Citigroup, "Prosper President Ron Suber addressed the issue", "Suber said", "Lifshitz, who was a venture capitalist before starting the company, said", and "Lifshitz said." This is not significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH or independent coverage per WP:ORGIND that can support notability - it is WP:PROMO.
- The investorjunkie website cited above does not appear to be a reliable source (it prominently notes "We may, however, receive compensation from the issuers of some products mentioned in this article"), and it is based on "Bluevine announced", and "According to the company's website", and "Bluevine says", and mostly promotes other companies, so it does not provide WP:CORPDEPTH about BlueVine, because it is presented as an example of a type of company or product being discussed, and the website is not independent per WP:ORGIND because the website appears to parrot material produced by the company and contains "Advertising Disclosure This article/post contains references to products or services from one or more of our advertisers or partners. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products or services" at the top of the post.
- For a company like this, WP:LOTSOFGHITS should be closely examined, because per the WP:ORGCRIT section of the WP:NCORP guideline, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. There appear to be a lot of press releases, churnalism of content produced by the company, and trivial coverage of its announcements; so far, there appears to be insufficient support for notability, especially after the WP:PROMO is excluded. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The CNBC article is over 700 words. It explains why Citigroup invested in BlueVine. It's right there in the title. It spends several paragraphs explaining factoring and how BlueVine was able to dominate that market. So, substantial, in-depth, and not trivial. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview stating "BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com". Lifshitz who founded Bluevine. He stated the extra capital is coming from Citi Ventures, which is funded by Citigroup. So an interview from the company director is explicity covered WP:ORGIND. It is not independent from the company and fails WP:SIRS policy. Its also funding news, investment is a form of funding which is covered by WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine funding annoucement. CORPDEPTH was explicity strengthend to stop routine funding news source to be used as references. And that is what is it. It is not a valid source. scope_creep^Talk 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The article simply quoted Lifshitz. It's just 2 sentences. That's not an interview. Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC does not explain why Citigroup invested in BlueVine - beyond the title, it provides a platform for people connected to the companies to promote a capital transaction, without a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, so there is insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH with WP:ORGIND for this source to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try reading the article? “We found BlueVine doing factoring in a much more modern fashion,” said Purushotham, who works out of the Citi Ventures Palo Alto office. “They’re able to approve invoices to be factored very quickly, and because they’re online and plugged into account systems that small- and medium-sized business use, they’re able to pull data from a variety of sources.” Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a quote from someone connected to the company, i.e. Citi Ventures, which engaged in the capital transaction, and Purushotham is also quoted in the April 27, 2016 BlueVine press release - Purushotham does not offer significant or independent analysis - this is promotion of the capital transaction. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purushotham didn't write the article. He was simply quoted. Ari Levy of CNBC was the author. Therefore, independent. Why are you being so misleading? Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis is based on a guideline designed to help protect the encyclopedia, per WP:NOT policy, and specifically WP:PROMO. When an otherwise reliable source substantially relies on promotional material produced by a company (including quotes from people connected to the company), it is not independent. The lack of independence is not the only issue with this source - it is also trivial coverage of Bluevine as a topic because it covers an announcement of a routine business transaction, and instead of discussing Bluevine in-depth, it discusses JPMorgan, WellsFargo, Goldman Sachs, American Express Ventures, and Capitol One Labs, how these transactions work generally, what happened with Citigroup and Prosper Marketplace, and a quote from Prosper President Ron Suber, before concluding with content and a quote from Bluevine CEO Lifshitz speculating on/promoting the advantages of the capital transaction with Citi Ventures. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, per thorough analysis of sources by Beccaynr which I agree with. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the source analysis from Beccaynr, not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (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.