Talk:Perfect Day (company)

Objection to proposed deletion
I'd like to object to the proposed deletion and have removed the tag for it. The reasoning didn't make sense to me; the reason given was that it was a copy-paste omitting revision history and that there was a draft awaiting review (after having initially been submitted, rejected, revised and resubmitted). However, the draft has since been deleted, and I'm able to see the content in the View History tab. In full disclosure, I had declared a COI on the draft, and this was missing - I've added it back to this talk page.

As I do have a COI and I drafted the initial article (with lots of help, advice and revision from other Wikipedians not affiliated with the company!) I'd like to see this article live on. I'm happy to take more of an advisory/discussion role from this point out of respect for the conventions of Wikipedia regarding COI. However, if there's anything I should do at this point to address concerns with the page, I'd be happy to have that discussion - I'm just not sure I understand what the concerns actually are. Thanks. BlackMaus (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This happened because of some crossed wires, and there are now a bunch of things that need to be fixed. I did not PROD it because it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I did it because of Wikipedia's policy on edit histories of pages. The page here was originally created by copy-pasting it from the draft page. That was (unintentionally) a violation of policy. Such an action should always be done by moving the material, not copy-pasting it. That's because of the copyright policy and the way that every editor who contributes to a page must have acknowledgment for the edits that they made. The page edit history prior to the copy-paste is lost, so all the work that happened before the copy-paste goes uncredited. That's why I requested that the page be deleted, so that it could be recreated by moving the draft to here. Given the contested PROD, that is now impossible. But what did do was to perform a history merge, which adds back the early edits to this page, and he therefore deleted the draft page, since it was no longer needed. Basically, that fixed it. But there is still a problem. While the PROD was underway, I and other editors made further edits at the draft page. Those edits are still lost here. I've contacted Barkeep49 and asked him to temporarily bring the draft back, so I can fix those missing edits. That's also why I temporarily reverted the edits made here in the last several hours after the histmerge. But once we have all the edits available, I expect we can get all of them put back in. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ugh. This is mightily confusing - I fear I made it worse by contesting PROD (although... I still don't fully understand why this can't be removed?) In any case - sorry, I should have waited for your response before acting. I got concerned because it looked like the page was set for deletion tomorrow, Nov. 2 (end of 7 days). Is there anything I can do to help correct course? BlackMaus (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I take it back - rereading your explanation and viewing the links now makes sense that the article and edits that should be there are "split." Let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. BlackMaus (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any trouble my actions played here but as Trypto pointed out my goal was to link an article that was moved into mainspace via copy and paste rather than a true merge. I will note procedurally while this article is ineligible for PROD going forward it could still be nominated for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. All's well that ends well, so no worries. All of it is understandable. And I should fess up that actually warned me not to do it this way, when I asked her advice. Please give me a bit of time, and I'll recreate everything that's missing, with attribution in the edit summaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead
I've put a cite needed tag there, and here is why. As written, the paragraph makes it sound like (1) Perfect Day is doing what they do for the sole reason of reducing greenhouse gasses, and (2) they have said that they are doing it in order to be like Impossible Foods. Either there needs to be a source cited that shows that the company has actually said these things, or the paragraph should be rewritten. Otherwise, there is a problem with WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The material I referred to is now the Background section, not the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates to Backing Section
A brief update to Perfect Day's funding: on Dec. 11, 2019 they announced their Series C raise of $140M, bringing the total funding to over $200M. I have a COI - I'm affiliated with the company - so I won't make changes to the article itself, but I'm providing a few key pieces of coverage the company received after the announcement. There was additional coverage, so please feel free to use these sources, or not. BlackMaus (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BusinessWire press release (for background)
 * Wall Street Journal
 * Financial Times
 * Fast Company
 * I'd be happy to add a second sentence to that section, reading:
 * In December 2019, the company announced that they had raised an additional $140 million.
 * I would be inclined to cite the sentence to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times (and maybe Fast Company). Since these are behind paywalls, I would request that you prepare the reference citations here, using Template:Cite news, and once you do, I will make the edit to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Hopefully these are formatted correctly:
 * Financial Times:
 * Wall Street Journal:
 * Thanks for your help! BlackMaus (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, and it looks to me to be good to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And ✅. . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)