Talk:99designs

COI declaration
While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have a WP: COI as a paid consultant to 99designs. I try my best to abide by the five pillars. Happy to help with any additional work that needs to be done to this draft. BC1278 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Notability
I added the notability tag to the article because the article does not appear to successfully establish notability according to WP:NCORP. None of the material about opening offices or rounds of funding can be considered to contribute to notability and the intro does not make any specific claim about what the company is notable for.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As the reviewer, I guess I have to explain my decision. It appears to be an online marketplace for graphic designers. According to this it is the largest. While there is incidental coverage there also appears to be other coverage too . Which could be worth putting into the article. The AFC reviewer's acceptance also strengthened my view of this being notable enough. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  09:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * jmcgnh I have added back the five sources removed during an edit that happened as a result of a question at Teahouse: Teahouse. Viewing all the sources from the original version, the three editors there did not see a notability issue. I suggest looking at an older, longer version of this article, such as: dif The longer version made two additional salient points: first, the company is the world's largest online marketplace for graphic design contests; second, the company came under serious criticism for its novel design contest model, where only the freelancer who creates the winning design receives any compensation. The rest of submitted spec design work receives no payment. This model was a serious disruption to the graphic design market. It also divided the design community -- some said the new model led to a great deal more access to work for designers without industry connections and also helped establish new design practices. But the company also made some changes to respond to criticism. The controversy was a hot topic in the design community (mostly in social media and blog posts calling for boycotts, but also through several mainstream articles reporting on the issue.) I've added back sourcing but can't touch the content in the article because of the COI disclosed above.BC1278 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * — jmcgnh I will make Request Edits for the content I mention above to be added back into the article so it can be evaluated without the dif. I think this should be acceptable since the flag is a request to improve the article, not a formal AfD. Let me know if you have any thoughts. BC1278 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * I think you're going about this the right way. You're also right that this is not an AFD discussion, it's a request to have the article show notability as well as the available references allow. When I work with a contributor on a draft submission, this is the one thing I always try to get properly established before accepting as an article. Sometimes it happens in the other order.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

User: DGG I've added many sources to this article, along with an explanation at the AfD discussion. As a result, the two reasons you cited for deletion are no longer applicable. 1) There are no press releases cited; 2) There are many sources that go beyond "mere notices." See, for example: this,this and this, this, this, this, this, this, this. A process has already started, below, to improve the article with substantial new content and sources. I'd request that you let this play out by either withdrawing the AfD nomination or if that's not possible, by at least saying that after further review you see the sources are not only press releases or mere notices. If those who are active in AfD try to immediately reverse the work of those active in AfC (now requiring two editors to sign off), it places the two projects at odds. Why should editors wait three months for an AfC review if it's not respected enough to at least merit Talk discussion? The better route would seem to be to first discuss notability and improving the article on Talk with the involved editors, which was how this was proceeding before the AfD nom.BC1278 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * In general AfC exists for the purpose of providing a screen on whether an article is likely to pass Afd. Decisions about notability as such can not be made there, because notability can only be decided by consensus (or implied consensus, if nobody disagrees). All that can be done at AfC is for an individual reviewer to say that it probably will pass, or otherwise. If they say yes, the article goes to mainspace and can be improved or discussed there, or taken to a deletion process by anyone who disagrees. that deletion process is the one that decids.  If they say that it is not likely, any autoconfirmed editor who wishes can move it mainspace anyway, and take heir chances at a subsequent discussion--though it is generally wise to improve it first/.
 * One of my routine activities here is reviewing the results ofAfc discussions, tho I can only manage it on a sporadic basis. Others do so also, which is why we have made sure that drafts approved at AfC still need to be checked at new page patrol. Normally I find a few each week that I think should not have been approved, and if I think it worth the trouble, I usually nominate them for deletion (some people instead return them to AfC, but that can cause even more conflict) But in practice this is a sideline--I'm more concerned with rescuing the ones that have ben unreasonable rejected there, and i usually find several of these every day.)
 * but in this case you seem quite correct:I think the references you have given here do show notability ,and I have accordingly commented  at the AfD. I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention--no one very active here can avoid making errors, but when they are pointed out, we need to correct them. And if nobody tells me, I don't find out.  DGG' ( talk ) 01:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Error in edit summary
I accidentally linked to MOS:PLAINLIST instead of WP:UBLIST by mistake in an edit summary while editing this article (maybe then draft). This was at about the same time as the draft got approved, which means many edits were being made in a short amount of time, so making a note in the edit summary of another edit right after it wouldn't be possible. I have made an edit mentioning it in the edit summary, but there are several edits between the two. So now I'm writing on the talk page. – Pretended leer { talk } 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request Edit
Hi,

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a COI here, disclosed above, as a paid consultant to 99designs.

This article was approved a couple of days ago from AfC, after a significant haircut made by me after an initial complaint about promotional language and as a result of comments/edits made by 3 editors at Teahouse who helped address the complaint. Teahouse It was then reviewed again by another editor, Araratic, for notability after it was moved to mainspace.

An AfD nomination was made. I think it will be helpful toward further establishing notability to restore two subjects from the longer version, especially the highly controversial business model that has divided the design community.

Insert as second paragraph of History:

From the onset, the platform divided the design community. The competition model drew criticism because the losing bidders in contests are not paid for their designs. The company and its competitors spurred a "NO!SPEC" campaign. Winning bids were also typically at lower rates than established designers charge, leading to further friction. Critics also said the fast turnaround time of contests could lower the quality of work. Other designers, however, have said they successfully used the platform as a business development tool to build long-term relationships with clients. About one-third of contest winners are hired for follow-on work, according to the company. The company has defended the contest model as facilitating equal access to projects, leading to more merit-based hiring. New designers are also able to work on improving their design skills in a real client bidding environment, the company said. As part of its response to the criticism, the company also established a mentoring network for more experienced designers to coach new designers on design skills necessary to win bids.

Insert in second to last paragraph of History:

The platform became the largest in the world for logo design competitions.

Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reply 10-NOV-2018

 * As this article is recently from AFC, and to counter any arguments of WP:FORUMSHOP, the COI editor should first seek the assistance of the editors who have given the latest input on the article, as they know best about the article's most recent needs. If those editor's are in agreement, WP:SOFIXIT should apply.  Spintendo   09:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

AfD Discussion
John from Idegon, timetempleton, Pretended leer, Aratic, jmcgnh Alerting editors in Teahouse discussion of Draft of 99 designs, and Notability discussion above, to actual AfD nomination at: Articles_for_deletion/99designs_(2nd_nomination). Also, please see my proposed changes for better establishing the notability of the article - including the criticism sections that helps show how this company impacted the graphic design industry, for better or worse. The criticism is the opposite of promotional but does get at why many reliable sources found this company to be worth covering. I can't implement these because of COI but you might consider making these changes.BC1278 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * I moved the infobox to the right place, among other minor edits. But I don't really know much about companies or reliable sources. Maybe a bit about graphic design that I've taught myself but... That's not relevant here. I don't think I have the skills to perfectly tell which sources have which problems.
 * Sometimes I can look at a source and feel something's wrong with it but I'm not sure what. And I do get that feeling when looking at those used here. But I'd rather let more experienced users look into them.
 * So should I just leave that AfD page alone or should I say there what I've already said here? – Pretended leer { talk } 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * see my comment above-- I have changed my !vote to keep on the basis of the sources provided above.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Request Edits
I have a COI, as disclosed above. Therefore, while I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I request review of the following proposals:

1) Remove: from lead, "...has a United States office in San Francisco, California."

Replace with:...has a United States office in Oakland, California."


 * Why? In 2015, the company moved its U.S. headquarters to Oakland, as described in the cited source.

2) Insert, in History, after "In 2008, the company opened a San Francisco office, because the majority of the platform's clients and designers were in the United States."


 * "It later moved its U.S. headquarters to Oakland, California."


 * Why? To avoid confusion once the lead is corrected to state the correct city of its U.S. HQ.

3) Insert in History, the word "initial" in this sentence: "....because the majority of the platform's initial clients and designers were in the United States.


 * Why? The source quotes the CEO as saying the majority of the company's first clients and designers were in the United States. It Maintaining this fine point avoids misleading conclusion that this is still true. The company has used investment capital to expand to 192 countries.

4) Insert, in History, after "In 2012, the company acquired a European competitor called 12designer, based in Germany":


 * "Germany became the European headquarters of the company."


 * Why? Establishment of a headquarters in Europe educational as to the historical expansion of this unique, controversial business model. (I will re-propose a section about the support/criticism of the business model at a later date. See section above for details.)

Please let me know if I can answer any questions. BC1278 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278


 * Done - with a few minor tweaks for flow and Wiki-linking. Two minor points: please include Template:request edit in all future suggestions to avoid your request being overlooked and to allow more uninvolved volunteers to review such requests. Secondly, while not relevant for this specific request, just 2c for future edits: please use sources like Inc Magazine or Fast Company with some caution. Such sources are not unreliable per se and can certainly be used for uncontroversial common facts. But they often tend to cover their topics in a biased, overly positive manner and to exaggerate their accomplishments and success (I would reject such sources as insufficient for most promotional and extraordinary claims). GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User: GermanJoe Many thanks! For a long time, I used to go directly to the Request Edit template. But then I read Edit_requests and it seems a recommended (non-binding) approach is to let the request remain on Talk without a template first, to see if discussion ensues, then add the template afterwards. So now I leave a bit of a time gap to see if anyone active on the article wants to weigh in before I add the template. BC1278 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278
 * I see, thank you for the clarification. I misread your proposal as a formal request, but of course a bit of initial discussion - or just asking for opinions to be safe - can't hurt. Anyway, it's added and I'll just keep it in now :). GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Logo is way too large
Like the section header says, the logo is way too large. I am not proficient in these areas, so if someone agrees then let's cut it down to about 60% of current size.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)