Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99designs (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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (DGG). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

99designs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The references are either press releases or mere notices. Previously deleted via speedy A7/  DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * a) The decision on the link provided to the right was "Speedy Keep" Articles_for_deletion/99designs, not Speedy Delete. Is there some missing discussion? b) Article was approved from AfC just a few days ago by John from Idegon and Araractic; c) There are no press releases cited; d) For a few of the articles and books that go beyond mere notices, see, for example: this,this and this, this, this, this, this, this, this; e) "Few start-ups have the honour of saying they inspired a rebellion." I believe  establishing notability could greatly benefit by a discussion of the "NO!SPEC" protest movement started by graphic designers against the company because losers of design contests don't get paid. I have suggested language and sources here: Talk:99designsBC1278 (talk) f) For a longer version, see  18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * Note: I have notified everyone (pro and con), here Talk:99designs from the Teahouse and notability discussions of the past few days.BC1278 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom. Fails sourcing for WP:NORG even the stuff that looks like in depth independent coverage like Pando is actually not independent. It reports that the company received $35 million from Accel partners and when you look at the about page you discover that Accel is the 2nd biggest stake holders in Pando. And I think we all know what value Forbes and techcrunch have as RS for notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - responding to ping. There's sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability.  The Forbes piece is a staff written article, not a guest "contributor" which I think is what causes concern elsewhere. The Sydney Herald and Fast Company pieces are also good.  I read and use Techcrunch a lot - it's quite reliable. Based on existing sourcing, the company meets WP:GNG. And now that the fluff has been culled, it read a lot better. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just read the talk page and pinging editors that worked on getting the draft accepted looks very much like WP:CANVASSING to me. Knowing full well they were involved in the article finding itself in mainspace seems a little bit like vote stacking because this nomination could be seen as a criticism of their judgement (which it actually isn't as a lot of accepted AFC get deleted and this is notmal) and I don't see the justification for it. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but the editor that first declined the submission was forgotten in the pinging. Seems a shame. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And of course all of those who so kindly came to the aide of the article creator at the teahouse were working pro bono for both the company and the creator to ensure their promotional presence on wikipedia because if it were not for promotional purposes they would not have paid for the edits. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that is why I am not spending any more of my time on this article. However, your comments don't have much to do with notability. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  09:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. The first AfD took place in 2014, while NCORP has been significantly tightened since then. The page does not meet it at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, notifications at Talk:99designs does look like canvassing and advocacy on behalf of a paid article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete; as it does not meet WP:CORP. Kierzek (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on references shown to me on the article talk page: smh.com.au,gbooks and gbooks, Forbes, pando, fast company, afr.com, mumbreslla, zdnet), I think there are enough substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources for notability---the one I regardds most useful is the one from zdnet. .  I cannot actually withdraw the afd, as others have commented for deletion. I urge them to reconsider. the appropriate step is to add the references to the article as it stands in mainspace--there is a draft at AfC, but it would be clearer to improve the actual article.,  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. It looks like you nominated this article because it had been speedily deleted, even though it hadn't, and now you're voting keep.  Wouldn't that be the same as withdrawing the nomination? Am I reading this wrong? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was speedy kept at AfD in 2014, then sometime speedy deleted, then recreated in July 2018 I believe. Not sure though how an article can be speedy deleted after it was speedy kept at AfD. Aoziwe (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was withdrawn by the nom so maybe the deleting admin felt that they could speedy delete after that. Best to ask them I suppose. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to me quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because the links in the article, in comments above, and in previous discussions linked above, establish by verifiable evidence that there is significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. It thus meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG and the alternate critera. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is certainly significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources (eg The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, and the Springer and Routledge publications). Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (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.