Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slidebean (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 delete. Participants determined that the available references do not satisfy guidelines and that the subject is not notable. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slidebean

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Jpczcaya (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

[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)

Fail of WP:ORGCRITE. References demonstrate trivial coverage or unreliable sources. nearlyevil 665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An assessment table was created to discuss the sources presented in the 2018 article discussion (1st Nomination). I am including it here.

This company has gained new coverage in the past months, which, to my perception, fulfills the GNG requirements for the publication. I have added those publications to the table.

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	~ While a guest writer, the writer has 100+ publications.			~ Partial
La Nación	La Nación is a one of the major news publications in the country.		Article dedicated to the company.	✔ Yes
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	~ Partial
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
The Washington Post			Brief mention of the founder and software. Compliant passing reference.	✔ Yes
Business Insider			Piece fully dedicated to the company. Protected under paywall, so unlikely a paid ad.	✔ Yes
Introduction to Computers for Healthcare Professionals		~	~	~ Partial
Small Business Management		~	~	~ Partial
El Periódico				✔ Yes
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}}.

Finally, this company's Youtube subscriber count exceeds the audience of This Week in Startups and many other Youtubers listed on Wikipedia.

Jpczcaya (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I was working towards starting this AfD myself, after removing most of the peacock language in this version), many of the sources here are thin (thenextweb and techcrunch are both not listed favourably on WP:RSP). Many of the cited sources are (were, as I removed them) promotional pieces or blogs (hongkiat). In the end their claim to notability boils down to "they have also helped create decks for multi-million dollar funding rounds". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply At least 5 of the sources in the assessment table from the first AfD have been agreed as meeting the GNG criteria. New coverage includes Washington Post and Business Insider. How many GNG sources are needed? -- Jpczcaya ^T 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a case of undisclosed paid-for spam. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GSS, not paid-for spam, I strongly suspect that the creator has a more direct conflict of interest. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Beetstra: Oh yes! Google was much helpful to reveal. ;) GSS ^💬 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did a quick Google search myself. I have added a COI tag to the article. nearlyevil665 10:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Nearlyevil665 and GSS:, the article states "'Caya' Jose Cayasso" as CEO, no need for an internet search. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply COI tag has been added and disclosed as per guidelines. Apologies for missing this. Tried to do the proper research after the experience with the first AfD.
        
        After User:Beetstra's edits, the current version of the article is clean, and includes language backed by the citations included, which seem to comply with GNG requirements on the assessment table (please edit this accordingly if you feel a source has been misrepresented). I've also updated the table with additional sources, including books and news publications with unquestionable notoriety (Washington Post, Business Insider, 'El Periódico' from Spain).
        
        I hate using an argument/drawing comparisons to other Wikipedia content, but I've identified comparable pages (for companies, products or Youtube channels) with less notoriety than Slidebean that have survived deletion consideration and even COIs. For example, This Week in Startups which only has 4 references of equal or similar weight to the ones provided here, TeslaBjorn a much smaller Youtube channel with citations coming from mainly primary sources; and PowToon a comparable product/company, with fewer sources, and also possible COI. Again, neither of these were subject to such scrutiny.
        
        The only reason I jumped back into this discussion was after I saw User:Oromo1235's attempt to republish this page back in March. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Slidebean). While I made mistakes in the process of bringing this discussion back to the table, I think there has been significant coverage on this company/Youtube channel that has not been taken into consideration.
        
        In advance, thanks for the time and dedication you've all put in considering this. -- Jpczcaya ^T 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Jpczcaya, I would like you to respond to the conflict of interest remarks (and read m:Terms of use). Note that your argument regarding TeslaBjorn is a good example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeslaBjorn). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Imagine if this was all a ploy to force the takedown of a rival's article. 4-D chess move. nearlyevil 665 09:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Beetstra I confirmed my COI, it's included a tag at the top of this discussion.
        Not intending to get those articles taken down, by any means (I wish I were that smart, nearlyevil). The point is they have withstood someones AfD/GNG consideration. Piotrus is oversimplifying this debate by discouraging the sources presented as press releases. Have you actually seen the sources in the assessment table?
        A Search (with social media excluded) yields 100,000+ results. I am genuinely asking: isn't that enough notoriety? -- Jpczcaya ^T 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The quantity of search results is irrelevant. I followed your link and skimmed through the first three pages and it's nothing but primary sources. I don't see any independent, significant coverage by secondary sources. And it's those type of sources that actually count towards notability. nearlyevil 665 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very impressed a user with less than 90 edits is using assessment tables. Shows what a slowpoke I am. Meanwhile, no significant coverage, fails WP:PRODUCT Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Don't get discouraged. The table was copied from the first AfD, written by an experienced user. nearlyevil 665 08:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert based on press releases. Burn with vengeance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Piotrus Did you review the assessment table above? A fair share of the sources are not press releases and come from relevant sources. -- Jpczcaya ^T 14:21, 21 April 2021 (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.