Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40Billion


 * 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. One of several borderline-notable, perhaps borderline-promotional articles that AfD has seen in recent days. As is often the case, the consensus is not very clear at first glance, and valid arguments are made on both sides. But in this case I consider it appropriate to find a consensus for deletion because that side is not only in the majority but more "delete" opinions examine the quality of the sourcing than "keep" opinions do.  Sandstein  07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

40Billion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Written like a promotional website article. References are given such as cruchbase, and others not very credible in nature. Press coverage questionable in nature as some paid PR. Light21 07:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I went through and deleted all of the questionable references and provided links to archive.org. Four references total plus two specifically about 40billion is enough notability for a keep for me.--Nowa (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the nice clean-up job by Nowa. Thanks for your work! Safehaven86 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- still a WP:PROMO; the article is mostly about advertising its products and services. The sourcing is weak to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. The article is too promotional to add value to the encyclopedia at this time, while the company does not appear to be notable or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the supposed improvements have actually not helped, in that the article is still PR, it's still with no significance or substance; nothing at all suggests there will be meaningful improvements especially with non-PR. SwisterTwister   talk  07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's excellent work on the article. The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written. Three of the four sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Black Web 2.0 (link), InformationWeek (link), and Adweek (link) all provide significant coverage of the subject. The CNN article (link) provides trivial coverage. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 40Billion to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - An article going to specifics who their partners and clients are is not "substance", this article then goes to specifics to state what the company's services and activities are, that's not convincing at all nor should it be if it's only PR; the BlackWeb source clearly seems like a PR-hosting website to republish PR, see "40billion.com seeks to democratize the venture capital process by giving members an easy and cost-effective way to create and distribute a business plan, raise capital through contributions and loans or invest in a start-up. It’s a novel idea....But 40billion.com seeks to do much more than that" (something only the company would to so elaborately say), the article then goes to specifics about its business and plans before it ends at exactly that. The SocialTimes says "40billion.com is a new platform for entrepreneurs’ micro-funding activities. The site matches entrepreneurs and investors online through social networking. It is an online marketplace for friends-and-family funding, or what we commonly refer to us “love money”, microfinance or social lending. Basically, 40billion is giving all of us access to affordable business financing through loans contributions/donations and equity partnerships...Then you invite your friends and family to invest...." (the following sentences then goes to specifics about how to use this company), that's yet another sales pitch in that it goes to specifics about what its activities are, not actual substance. The InformationWeek source goes to say "Atlanta-based 40Billion.com features proprietary online tools that entrepreneurs use to create social networks designed to raise funding, inviting members of their network to provide money in exchange for potential returns or discounts, according to the site...." which not only ends to cite the company itself, but it cites word for word what the company wants to say about itself, that's not independent or news. CNN not only cites it's "coverage for starting businesses", but it only ever mentions the company a mere 1 time and that was because of a company quote. SwisterTwister   talk  06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you thought about removing the parts you feel are promotional?--Nowa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to actually imrpvoe when everything is still PR, from information to sources. SwisterTwister   talk  17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH:, , . The article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination for deletion (see Revision history). Any traces of promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article at this point. North America1000 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment and analysis - One of the sourced listed is then the BlackWeb which was interviewed information and PR attempts of advertising what the company's services are ("40Billion seeks to...."); the other two are also blatant attempts, one of them begins with "What 40Billion wants to offer you", if that's not a sales pitch, I'm not sure what it is.... Copy-editing means nothing if my analysis above has specifically shown thr concerns, that everything is focusing with what exactly the company wants their clients and investors to hear: what the company is about, its services and then its finances. The next source also then begins with "40Billion let's you raise money...40billion is giving all of us access to affordable business financing through loans contributions/donations and equity partnerships....40Billion is the entrepreneurs platform, matching entrepreneurs and investors....Now, how does 40billion make you money?", these are not journalism words, they are company-supplied information, because no journalist would ever care to advertise a company unless there was something it for said journalist, or that the company supplied it as PR. Once we start accepting "news" that are obviously company-influenced and -supplied, we are essentially accepting advertisements, which causes significant damages.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The conversational tone of a reliable source with editorial oversight does not make the source unusable in establishing notability. Descriptions of the company's products and history like financing does not make the source unusable in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment re "The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written" -- I do not see it this way. With content such as:


 * 40Billion was started in 2008 by Cornelius Colin McNab, an entrepreneur, inventor, and graduate of Yale and MIT Sloan School of Management. The company had raised $1.05 million in three Series Seed financing rounds. In 2011, 40Billion released social networking tools that let users connect to the site using their existing LinkedIn or Facebook profiles, as well as import contacts from email programs like Gmail and Microsoft Outlook.


 * ...the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT and exists solely to promote the business. The readers are informed about the qualifications of its non-notable founder ("entrepreneur, inventor, and graduate"), while the article attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from his alma maters. (This is typical of such promotional articles, as they need to prop up the founding figures, most often by citing the non-notable companies they had previously founded and then sold to a notable entity. This paragraph is especially desperate looking, since the only "claim of notability" is that the founder can be associated with well known schools.)


 * The article as it stands has no encyclopedic value and accepting such promotional articles is not in line with Wikipedia's stated policies about promotionalism. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted by trying to maintain neutrality of this page. Keeping this article is not in the best interest of the project, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A short summary of the founder's background is appropriate and not promotional. Redundant descriptors for the founder of a company like "entrepreneur" and "inventor" can be removed. That does not mean the article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I commented at Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software), I don't find it possible to improve WP:PROMO articles through copyediting alone. There will be nothing left if such promotionally sourced content is removed: link to comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In connections with the response of my own comment above, a source is in fact unacceptable (regardless of where it comes from) if it contains noticeable PR intent and contents, in this case, one and only person who would know about the businessman's own career is the man himself, and that's clearly an attempt to shoehorn flashy PR information about himself, along with the company, because certainly no journalist would have knowledge of that nor the interest to mention it for an article. Let me also say that the Keep votes are not at all actually substantiating themselves to both acknowledging and considering the concerns, let alone take actions about it, because one thing is also certain here, no improvements have actually helped, see this and this, the essence of PR and that alone has stayed, and if at all, keeping it like this emphasizes it worse, including by of course only focusing with the exact information the company itself wants to say, and it's accomplishing this by publishing and republishing PR, by only focusing with such company-supplied information such as who the clients are, where the investing money is coming from, what its services, etc. In fact it's clear alone that this company has actually been willing to keep it like this the fact, not only had an IP started it, but it's not changed at all. To state the obvious, the IP was actually geolocating to the company's locality as it is! There are no actual improvements if an article is PR and that alone, because once we start compromising about accepting PR, that's when Wikipedia has become a PR host, and we need to stop kidding ourselves about thinking otherwise, because it causes severe and noticeable damages. SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete My goodness, there is no claim of significance here and the sources are seriously atrocious.
 * SocialTimes This is no article by a staff writer, but rather a freelance writer. Social Times is a niche website and gives over-coverage to social media news. The tone of the sources is highly promotional which makes me doubt that it is a, not satisfying WP:ORGIND.
 * CNN
 * InfoWeek . See WP:ORGIND which says other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. are not useful for notability. See also quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources are excluded in WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * BlackWeb . Plus the column is a personal opinion rather than a journalistic news piece.
 * Overall this clearly falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. The lack of references over a period of multiple years is indicative of the lack of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Social Times article: I see no indication that the article is by a freelance writer. His author page gives his email address as arnoldzafra@mediabistrotest.com. Mediabistro is a subsidiary owned by Adweek's parent company. "Adweek Parent Prometheus Buys Mediabistro Editorial Assets. Includes about 25 sites By Adweek Staff". The article is an independent source because 40Billion has no affiliation with with Social Times, Mediabistro, or Adweek. The InformationWeek article: The article discusses both the company's product and the company's history. I consider coverage about the company's product to be coverage about the company. The source provides "deep coverage" about the company that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Notability (organizations and companies)). The CNN article: I agree this is trivial coverage. The Black Web 2.0 article: I do not consider Alexa a reliable source. From Search engine test: "Alexa rankings vary and include significant systematic bias which means the ratings often do not reflect popularity, but only popularity amongst certain groups of users (See Alexa Internet#Concerns). Broadly, Alexa rates based upon measurements by a user-installed toolbar, but this is a highly variable tool, and there are large parts of the Internet user community (especially corporate users, many advanced users, many open-source and non-Windows users) who do not use it and whose Internet reference use is therefore ignored." Alexa discusses how they compile their rankings here. That it is based on a user-installed toolbar makes it unreliable. That the article is by a columnist does not mean it cannot be used to establish notability. The article's author wrote: "In the end though I feel 40billion.com comes up short. For one, business plans are all over the internet and it does not provide a tried and true approach to writing a winning plan. Also, treating every business in any industry the same when it comes to start-up financing may also not be a good idea." This criticism of the company clearly demonstrates that the source is not promotional. This is contrary to SwisterTwister's comment about the Black Web 2.0 source that it is "PR attenpts of advertising what the company's services are". Cunard (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because it was still interviewed information, hence not independent. SwisterTwister   talk  04:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Adweek article is part of their blog network, as it discloses at the top, and cannot be taken as a RS for N. The Information Week article is in large part about other companies. And the other sources are even less adequate . DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - It appears that the organization is known but not notable, in my opinion, so to speak. I also don't find the cited sources particularly persuasive. The problems have been hashed out already above, so there's not really much that I can add. I'm not sure, but deletion seems like the best move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.