Talk:Braze, Inc.

Funding: intricate detail
This section is not following summary style, providing intricate detail on various funding rounds, dates and venture firms, including some that are non notable. Moving this here in case someone would like to use the sources for anything else:


 * The company received $7.6 million in Series A funding in November 2013 (from Icon Ventures, Michael Lazerow, Blumberg Capital, Accelerator Ventures, Bullpen Capital and Triple Five Group) and $15 million in Series B funding in October 2014 (from InterWest Partners, Icon Ventures, Blumberg Capital, Triple Five Group and IDG Ventures). In May 2016, Appboy closed a $20 million Series C funding round, bringing the company's total funding to $42.5 million.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Information about the funding of the company is encyclopedic information. It is historical information about when the company received funding and from whom. Companies articles like Google at Google and Palantir at Palantir Technologies contain very detailed information about funding. There is no reason for Appboy not have a similar level of detail. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Cunard's opinion. North America1000 22:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. See WP:EINSTEIN. What is encyclopedic information for one of the most famous companies in the world is absurd overcoverage for a small business like this. But not worth fighting over.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the same type of information about "one of the most famous companies in the world" is non-encyclopedic for a startup. There is no policy basis to say that it is fine to include funding information for a famous company but not for a startup. Cunard (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's encyclopedically relevant is how much money the company raised in total; the details of each round is excessive intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Non notable co-founders
Moving here for storage in case someone wants to use the source for something else:


 * That same year, Bill Magnuson and Jon Hyman joined the company as co-founders.

Both are non notable individuals and this is a non-meaningful intricate detail not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary for the co-founders of a company to be notable to warrant mention in an article. A company's co-founders are an important part of the company's history. I oppose removing them. Cunard (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cunard's opinion here. North America1000 21:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Content restored / removed
I agree with the content restoration that has occurred in this article (diff). A user that opined for deletion at the deletion discussion had stripped the article down to an unacceptable level, essentially qualifying the article for WP:A7 deletion. North America1000 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The wholesale reversion (diff) was not appropriate as this edit removed the maintenance tags (added by another editor) & restored the Further reading section. Please make the case for other changes individually. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I also think this version is preferable to this version. I would support restoring the more comprehensive version, and then than can be tagged as appropriate. But the removal of tags/restoration of a further reading section is not a good reason to needlessly cut this article down to almost nothing. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The content was removed not just by myself by also by editor, including this dubious claim: diff. I do not see a consensus for this version to be restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Further reading" is not really appropriate for a topic such as this in any case - it's not about some sort of broad academic concept. Store them on the talk page maybe, but they don't belong in this article unless they're being used. WP:ELNO - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So, in the spirit of WP:BRD, we should discuss the matter here. K.e.coffman removed most of the content, and David Gerard removed a sentence. this was reverted, and now it should be discussed. North America1000 22:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with restoring the "Further reading" section and removing the maintenance tags since the AfD was closed as "no consensus" and no one has explained how the article is incomplete. Per WP:FURTHERREADING, "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." The articles included in the "Further reading" section were to help readers learn more about Appboy. The guideline does not say that "Further reading" sections are restricted to "some sort of broad academic concept". I support restoring the more comprehensive version because all of the removed information is reliably sourced and encyclopedic as I explained here. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with having the Further reading section included, because it provides valid content for Wikipedia's readers, not to mention that it also serves to demonstrate notability for the company, which was an issue at the recent AfD discussion. Unfortunately, when assessing notability, some users base their opinions only based upon the sources within an article, rather than the overall availability of sources. I am also concerned that a user who opined for deletion at the discussion has continuously removed most of the article's content, essentially qualifying the article for WP:A7 deletion in the process. North America1000 22:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the client list a dubious claim? The Fortune article reads: "The company is already used by brand marketers at Tinder, Domino’s, Urban Outfitters, and SoundCloud." The article doesn't attribute that claim to the company. In any event, removing that one sentence is different than removing almost all of the article's content. They are not similar edits. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that the company does business with major notable companies provides a valid claim of significance, in my opinion. Also, it is backed by a reliable source. The single-sentence mention of said companies improves the article, in my opinion, rather than detracting from it. North America1000 22:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the tag removal, I believe that the reverting editor is confusing a "Keep" close with a "No consensus" one. There has been no consensus that this subject is notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * From Template:Notability: "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources. If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." I am "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues". There was no consensus to delete the article, so the tag should not be restored because notability has already been discussed. The notability tag should not remain on the article indefinitely. If you continue to believe the article is non-notable, as per Template:Notability, please either discuss on this talk page or renominate the article at AfD instead of edit warring over the tag. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A "further reading" section seems completely inappropriate for this sort of article. This isn't about some sort of broad philosophical or academic concept. Such lists are routinely removed under WP:ELNO. If they're references, use them in the article, and if they're not, they don't belong there per WP:ELNO and should be stored here. Don't use the mainspace article as your scratchpad - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion closed as "No consensus", not as "Keep". Thus it's still appropriate to question the notability of the subject, as it was not positively established during the AfD. I'm further concerned about the removal, as the edits of the reverting editor have not demonstrated sufficient critical judgement and proper use of sources. See for example my comment ("according to the company" was conveniently left out) during the Appboy AfD. To reiterate my comment at the linked AfD, I don't believe that such uncritical editing is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with David Gerard that a "further reading" section is inappropriate. If the links there tell us interesting/important facts about the business, incorporate those facts into the article and use the links as sources. If there's nothing that can be added, then they shouldn't be in the article at all, and linking them seems to a tad too promotional for my tastes. As for the notability tag, my understanding is that it's only inappropriate to re-add notability tags if the result of the AfD was keep. A no-consensus close mean that there was no consensus about the notability, so it might not be notable, which makes the tag appropriate. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Unlike a keep, a non-consensus close does not establish the notability of the subject. It merely indicates that the participants in the discussion about notability came to no conclusion.
 * As for further reading sections in articles like this, I recognize the possible usefulness of the material. But this could be equally well served by placing the references on the talk page, for future editors to use in expanding or otherwise improving the article.  Placing it in the article in the ho[pe that it will indicate  additional notability is inappropriate: WP is not a list of citations from search engines. (see also WP:CITEKILL).  DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Inre "I recognize the possible usefulness of the material. But this could be equally well served by placing the references on the talk page...", regarding equal usefulness, this is not necessarily the case here. For example, compare the page views for the article and this talk page for the last 90 days. These figures naturally suggest that the sources are much more likely to be seen, and therefore used to expand this incomplete article, when placed in the actual article. Just saying. North America1000 21:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Article: 3,174 page views in the last 90 days
 * Talk page: 240 page views in the last 90 days.
 * you're talking about readers. I'm talking about potential editors (and, anyway, how many of these accesses were in relation to the deletion discussion?)  DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And about client lists. Every notable organization buys from a great number of suppliers. Without any detailed knowledge of the significance of what is bought and how much, it's analogous to  NOT INHERITED. On the other hand, if some firm is the principal or only supplier of something critical to the operation of a notable company, that is worth mentioning.  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)