Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. No further discussion despite relist. So Why 06:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdspring

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

Its a Corporate spam and promotions. Previously Deleted and created again. Light2021 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Deleted at first AfD but kept at 2nd AfD because there were sources. Now there are even more sources, some added to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does badly need a rewrite though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would likely support, but the WP:ICs are in bad need of wikification. Please read through WP:CITE to see how to cite your WP:RSs using templates like {{cite web}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism and trivia, as in: "Crowdspring maintains a blog which was launched in mid-2008.[16]" etc. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed most of the spammy corporate marketing but there are two sources provided that meet the guidelines for establishing notability, namely this CNET article and this Slate article written by Rob Walker (journalist). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See source examples below. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Social Media Marketing: The Next Generation of Business Engagement. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt232–233.
Twitterville: How Businesses Can Thrive in the New Global Neighborhoods. Penguin. pp. pt.110–111
Slate.
Information Week
CNET.
Chicago Tribune
Information Week (I reached the limit for free page views, so could not view this entire article)
Forbes – Written by a Forbes contributor, but the author was previously a staff writer for Forbes for seven years, per their bio on the Forbes website. This serves to support the author's journalistic professionalism.

Delete as I examined the sources above and the first 5 were all clear promotionalism; the books I'll specify were all unsatisfactory of WP:ORGIND and what it classifies as acceptable. The Forbes is actually similar to this too since it contains clear company quotes or other primary-sourced material, such as "The company said", "The company claims", " "According to the company", "Company announces", all primary wherever published. Our specific policies here are Wap:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy both which support removal when material is unacceptable, regardless of Notability. GNG is a suggestive guideline of possible Notability so it's not a n immediate solution to keeping. When all these sources have the same "Based on company's words", it's not independent and that Independent coverage is actually needed by WP:GNG's stated criteria therefore unusable for keeping here. As for ORGIND again, the books are in fact professionally authored books about the business field side of it, not the objective side of it, therefore cannot be labeled as indiscriminate coverage at all> With or without our differences of how many there are, they won't eliminate the fact they're press releases-influenced for consumer attention. In fact, the current article has a minor few sentences about trivial "controversies" they had, by far outweighed by the centered promotionalism. Like a mannequin, such advertising cannot be sugarcoated with extra press releases, instead the naked truth is removing it as we always have by policies. As an unsurprising note, the current sources first given here in the article are in fact consisting of the same "Company announces", "Company spokesman says", "Company plans", "According to the company", "Company's website", etc. All speaks for itself. To extend this deeper, I'll boldly highlight the relevant concerns: Thanks to services like Crowdspring.com, clients large and small can post a design task and set a fee and sit back while far-flung competitors fight for the prize...."Minimum reward: Crowdspring allows: $200....$359 for a "standard" account. (That amount includes the $200 minimum fee for the winning designer; obviously you can pay more if you want to offer a higher fee. If you pay $1,349, you can register as a "Pro" and supposedly get access to "top creatives," plus more control over who can see your project's entries, all instantly violating WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a relevant policy since it can singlehandedly support deletion, regardless of possible notability. Second one is The service is focused at first on graphic design: Logos, and artwork for use in marketing literature and ad campaigns. A company looking for work posts the assignment to CrowdSpring, and then receives finished work from contractors participating in the service. and equally indiscriminate by our policies. This alone in fact airtight-seals its intentions as promotion, given they're simply consumer-targeted guides, not genuine uninvolved coverage and no one but the company would know a consumer guide for company products best than themselves. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. The sources I provided are not particularly promotional in nature, and none are comprised entirely of interviews. It is common for mass media and news sources to publish quotes from people about their companies; it would be unobjective and biased for them to omit such content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:17, 14 July 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.