Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honestbee (2nd 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 keep.

While there currently is a discussion at WT:CSD to make ToU violations a reason for speedy deletion, the current WP:PAID policy does not contain any such language. A ToU violation is thus not a reason for deletion alone, especially if - as was the case here - the article saw significant edits by other editors. Just like with WP:G5, there is no community-wide consensus in favor of deletion when this would also remove significant edits by "innocent" editors (even the discussion at WT:CSD is only about a proposal to delete if no such contributions exist).

As for notability, consensus here is that the sources provided by Northamerica1000 are sufficient to demonstrate notability, especially that they are sufficiently independent from the subject and not, as alleged by the nominator, only reprints of company information.

Regards So Why 12:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee

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

Promotional advertising which has see-sawed between removed and restored advertising in its year-old existence; last AfD showed such analysis as it’s eager to prove it can deliver the goods, The company can also nudge shoppers towards picking time slots, On March 30, the grocer asked its users to “sink your teeth” into the meats supposedly from Explorer Joe Exotic Meats (the website is apparently fake) and place orders until March 31. It said deliveries would be made on April 1; next, as mentioned before, those sources were all from local or trade publishers which cannot be accepted by WP:ORGIND, WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Even then, a new search at News shows nothing but clearly labeled announcements, interviews, press releases or notices: 1-3, 4 is a "company republishment", 6, 8, 9-14, 16, 18, 19, etc. and all which would fit our policy: [Wikipedia articles are not]: Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions". The author was clearly a COI and, worse, when the AfD was visited by a now-banned paid user, both of which have no place of tolerance here. If we examine the current article's contents, it's all general overview, first sentence is what it is, sentence is its funding investors, third is about employees and the last is funding again. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. It seems to have legitimate online grocery operations in several Asian countries. The article should be expanded and fixed, not deleted. Trialeditor (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some source examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete -- the above sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH; the only truly independent sources that I was able to find discuss the company's labor practices (misleading advertising to potential contractors). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Received $15M in funding, which is small for venture-backed tech companies. The article was created by Special:Contributions/Karentho who is currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The article was also extensively edited by an account bearing the company's name; also indef blocked as socks. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honestbee/Archive. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are in fact not independent as shown by the nominator and the Delete votes; there's also the clear WP:Sockpuppetry violations of which are a policy firm in what cannot be accepted; especially, sockpuppets have no luxury of their violations being accepted; this is in fact emphasized in WP:GNG's lead: if it is not excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not, and sockpuppetry to evade attention or notice, is exactly one of those violations. It wouldn't ever actually matter what the sources are, because it's clear any that are actually existing wouldn't be sufficient. Also, this is different than what we actually see because as WP:ITSNOTABLE says, simply asserting that sources may establish notability is not the same thing as actually showing the article has hope for changes, take WP:GNG's other section which says in bold: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article so it's clear there's a lot more to actually accepting sources, than simply saying any of them will automatically work. Suggesting that we work to company's own needs to their own financial or material gains, is also a violation of our policy WP:Not a newspaper, because we're not a for-hire publisher and we are simply not a place for such goals at all. As WP:GNG also says, articles must be in acceptable condition before, during or after the community analyses it and nothing has been offered to achieve this. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the statement above, "as the sources are in fact not independent ..., as an example, I doubt the company would issue this article published in The Straits Times as some sort of press release. The article is full of criticism about the company, and it comes across that the reporter contacted the company, not vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has gotten sustained press, bad and good. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two sources in the list above that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Oddly enough though, the best sources are rather critical of the April Fool's prank and the pay rates but none of this criticism appears in the article... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to note for the record here that, while the Keeps are not policy-based, but not only was the starting use a clear sockpuppeteer but this also has all the classic textbook markings of undisclosed payment, especially when it resorted to multiple accounts on the company's behalf. This therefore violates our Terms of Use which says: must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and because any payment would've been between the knowledge of only the hired and hiree, we only judge by the manner of how it looks and there's all the signs here. Our Terms of Use are non-negotiable especially in aspects of covertly helping the company's own promotionalism. Bevwusw the last AfD also never acknowledged the explicit concerns of this, a new nomination therefore was warranted to build upon a better examining and judgement. No one has actually cared to show us how an article can be fixed, as WP:GNG quotes itself: In it is not excluded by WP:What Wikipedia is not, which in this case, it is. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article's talk page is appropriately tagged with the Connected contributor template, and the article does not have a promotional tone that would require cleanup at this time. The article received copy edits from other users that addressed tone issues that were present earlier in the article's history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record's sake, I'll clarify, as the history shows, the templates were added post-CU-ban thus the editors themselves never formally made a disclosure, therefore they are still in fact violations of Terms of Use. Also, the violation itself of using multiple accounts to evade attention is still in fact a violation of the TOU section "Refrain from Certain Activities". My comment was also a question as to how the ToU could ever be bypassed for the sake of solely keeping the article. In fact, as the templates added by a different user say, "All edits should be reverted on sight" given the ToU violations. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I know it's easy (and honestly tempting) to conflate a user with their content. That is to say, well the user is up to no good so the article isn't either. I try to tease apart the two issues when I can. That being said, I feel there's not quite enough to push this one over the notability edge. The majority of what I saw was a bit of a one off with their whole April Fools thing. Another, was really more about the owner than it was the business, and as was previously mentioned, another reference was more about the worker wages than it was the company itself. I feel if there were perhaps one or two really good sources, this would be a weak keep for me. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Drewmutt says, "It's easy [...] to conflate a user with their content." I can't help but wonder how much that inclination is coloring people's contributions to this discussion. I'll agree that it doesn't help that the article currently doesn't contain any reference to either of the negative issues raised in North America's long list of sources... but I will personally add that information should the article survive AfD. (I'm not adding it while the article is at death's door.) The people who tried to abuse Wikipedia by editing undisclosed and with sockpuppet accounts have been punished; there's no need to also punish ordinary readers who come here looking for information about honestbee by taking that information away. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000's sources clearly demonstrate that Honestbee passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Negative coverage like this article from The Straits Times are not promotional sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Passes WP:GNG--though mostly in the form of negative covg.Also per NA1000.The TOU violations are shady zones though! Godric on Leave (talk) 10:14, 18 August 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.