Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beesfund


 * 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 no consensus. There is no consensus among participating editors over whether the provided sources establish notability under NCORP. As the there has been fairly extensive discussion I do not think it qualifies for a further relist under policy and instead am closing this as no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Beesfund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very large article on very small venture fund--the total capitalization is about $8 million. The references exception are  notices of funding or trivial PR releases or interviews that amount to pr releases, like ref. 3, where the founder says whatever he cares to, or inclusion in general articles.  DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I'm sorry, your arguments are not true. It's not a venture fund, it's an equity crowdfunding platform that is gaining a significant attention of mainstream media, including Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider. I'm really able to recognize "trivial PR releases," hence I have included none. I can understand the subject is complicated (articles on other platforms are of similar length: PledgeMusic, Symbid, Invesdor) -- and this is why I carefully tried to explain the complexity with the NPOV, in an informative form, with facts having sources. The length itself, nor capitalization (what's your source?) is no reason for deletion. If you have doubts, we can add the badge. — Kochas 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * DGG, as per WP:SAVEPROD, and no clear consensus, I'm letting you know I've explained the rationale on creating the article in the discussion here. I've also edited out the article. If I may, I suggest we deprod. Should you had any further questions and/or suggestions what bits you have doubts over, I'd be happy to respond and work further on the article. — Kochas (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as it appears to be notable and is one of the more well written articles compared to the permastubs like Motus Bank and other Canadian financial institutions. Still, that's not to say this article doesn't need some WP:NPOV improvements. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I nominated that article for its own deletion discussion, I encourage you do the same in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, WP:IAR could also be used here to legitimize my argument. I'm still not completely convinced the need to delete this article, as it is quite in-depth. Does the WP:Notability refer to minimum shareholder equity/capital for notability? Doug Mehus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Long article. I'd like to ask User:Kochas is he has any WP:COI to declare, such as being paid to create this? Now, notability. Lots of press releases and primary. (Forbes) is half-interview, and the parts that are not read like taken from a press release.  Another interview.  - paywalled, so can't verify.  - rewritten press/release / one para. Everything else seems like low quality source. It's a very long WP:CORSPAM entry, but in the end I don't see what makes it pass WP:NORG. In other words, the usual start-up 'buy us/our shares' type of promo spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your voice, User:Piotrus. For a one-time journalist and editor myself, my mission is to provide useful, readable prose. And as you might see in my edits, I prefer to contribute with coherent articles rather than adding small parts, to make a strong, well written material for a WP:GOOD article. Which has nothing to do with WP:PE. When you're interested (or are fascinated by, for that matter) in a subject, you're dedicated to spread the word. I'm sure you know it yourself, since you've created so many history articles (kudos to you!). The company is gaining so much media attention I've been gathering all the sources for a long time now, eventually making a strong article out of it. Similarly to my earlier articles on Venture capital in Poland, or Startup Poland, on subjects hardly anyone has wished to cover, so far. If you are seeing doubtful references, you're free to remove them, change them, or ask other contributors to have a look at them. I'm considering nominating myself for a reviewer or other specialized function, and I would never cut shortcuts with WP:CITESPAM (I guess that's what you're referring to). – Kochas (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am convinced there are no COI issues here, however I am still unconvinced this passes WP:NCORP. Granted, it is difficult to AGF such topics due to high volume of spam. Your article is very well written, but is it notable? I am afraid that the coverage is still rather weak (press releases, business as usual reports, few interviews...). Well, let's see what others will say. Btw, I think that it makes much more sense to write articles on venture capital / startups in Poland, where semi-notable startups etc. can be discussed, and I commend you for your work on those overview articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate the good word. And as for the coverage, I wouldn't bother with blogs and press releases to affect my reputation. I was really careful to quote nothing but articles that still accumulate in major news outlets in Poland, and they don't just publish PR messages. I'd be happy to work on the piece further with anyone familiar with the subject. – Kochas (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn my delete vote. In the end, there is no COI here, and I think the coverage in various outlets, including some reasonably in-depth and reliable like is sufficient to make this pass NORG after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, both of you have indicated that you have found references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I have been unable to find any. [This reference, for example, is based entirely on an interview with Ludwik Sobolewski who used to be the former president of the Warsaw Stock Exchange but had just joined Beesfund before the interview (and the article is littered with references that show that Sobolewski is being interviewed and is providing the information). What other references do you believe meet the criteria? I know the 80 references looks daunting but you can automatically exclude easily identifiable primary sources, blogs, company announcements or articles based on same, articles based on interviews, mentions-in-passing or inclusion in lists, etc. There's nothing left after that as far as I can see.... [[User:HighKing| HighKing]]++ 16:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , with all due respect, last time I checked, quotes from international media outlets on English Wikipedia (Polish and Romanian included) were considered notable enough. The article you mention doesn't only interview the guy, the author elaborates further what does adding the former WSE chief to the company actually means. — Kochas (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a bit more source discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:PROMO. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, K.e.coffman, but I'm sorry, no argument you raise here is true. Please let me clarify, in case you did not speak Polish (as the company in question originates from Poland, and so does the majority of my references) – I would never quote any opinion pieces in a Wikipedia article. Not to mention self-promotion, or propaganda for that matter (re: WP:PROMO). With all due respect, I have doubts that any historian who is an expert in World War II matters, would necessarily recognize significance of latest equity market subjects, including blockchain efforts led by share market players. And vice versa, certainly. If you did speak Polish, you would definitely know every WP:ORGCRIT criteria are in fact met here. That was my idea to put together the article in the first place. The company's presence in major Polish media is increasing thanks to its crowdfunding campaigns involving hundreds of investors, as well as the changing European law – and in turn, for the last few years now, the major economy media in Poland has covered Beesfund in their headlines more and more. These are the very reasons the article should be there. I hope you reconsider. — Kochas (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article is lengthy because of its essaylike nature, using many news articles that are not about Beesfund. Maybe it is a sincere (but misguided) attempt to create a useful article, or maybe a deliberate attempt to give the impression Beesfund is more notable than in reality. Because of the amount of cleanup required, maybe it should be moved back to draftspace to re-write it on-topic, without any original synthesis, or off-topic commentary about crowdfunding. Sionk (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, I'm not sure if you !voted or not but in case you weren't aware, if an article is deleted, any editor can request the deleted article is placed in Draft space so that they can continue to work on it.  HighKing++ 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete For an article that has 80 references, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to establish notability, it must be significant and in-depth coverage on the *company* containing independent content consisting of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In other words, no Primary sources, no references relying on interviews/quotations/company announcements, no references based on crystal ball gazing into the future, no mentions-in-passing and no churnalism. As I said, none of the references qualify. I also wholeheartedly agree that this article is highly promotional and resembles marketing literature. It is chock-full of company-speak promotional statements and falls foul of WP:SPIP. For example, the history section has 6 sub-headings with titles such as "Increasing interest" and "Further growth". By way of contrast, it has the same number of paragraphs as the Bank of America article. It contains other promotional statements such as "[the founders] own issuance served as an example to prove the legality of public issues of shares offered without a prospectus or memorandum" and "Beesfund wants not only startups but also mature companies to benefit from crowdfunding in Poland". The author continues to toe the company line while laying the "excuse" for not launching an accelerator by including a quote from Regiec laying the blame solely with the WSE. I'm tempted to edit the article but I doubt any editors who take the time to look at the references (and not balk at having to go through all 80) will quickly see that they fail the criteria. Topic fails GNG and NCORP and SPIP.  HighKing++ 16:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment @HighKing, the basis of your opinion on lack of notability seems to come out of not speaking Polish, sir. Otherwise you'd know the sources in question are major Polish daily newspapers (eg. Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita), economy dailies (Puls Biznesu, Parkiet), major weekly magazines (Polityka, Newsweek Polska), or economy news websites (or their economy spinoffs). The only instances I used the company's own website came out of the context, such as with the table of the biggest issuances. How can you contribute to the conversation, if you don't know the titles, or the names, hence the significance of the Polish media? Please let me exemplify this once again: the number of coverage in the Polish major media outlets through the recent years, and the increasing overall interest in Beesfund, the company's impact on the economy discourse were the reason for me to write the article in the first place. I haven't used any press releases for the article to be "highly promotional". The expression is a skeleton key in the discussion. You could name any *company* article this way. The sentences you've quoted serve the context. If they seem doubtful in your opinion, let's make them work fine, while assuming good will. Sionk did a pretty good job already. — Kochas (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Response Hi, no, the basis for my !vote has very little to do with the language of the reference as Google Translate is very helpful in that regard. Just FYI, you should be a little more careful of shooting accusation/allegation at experienced editors, To turn your own arguments against you (only so that you can see how meaningless they really are) - you appear to have an overly-simplistic version of the type of reference that is required to meet the criteria for notability. An Independent Reference does not simply mean that the publisher has no link with the company but that the content must also be independent. How can you contribute to the conversation if you don't even know the applicable policies and guidelines? Please take a look at the definition of "Independent Content" at WP:ORGIND and then point me to any one of the the 80 links that meet the criteria and I will point out in detail why it fails the criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Response Hi, thank you for the reply. First of all, any further discussion wouldn't change your mind here, would it? Second, I had no intention of making you feel offended; if I have, I'm sorry. Although I haven't shot, accused, nor alleged anything to anyone here. Still, at the same time I feel sorry that you named my arguments "meaningless," my editing "not careful," and my understanding "overly-simplistic." And that you assumed I don't know the rules Wikipedia relies on. Oh, and the subtext about me being less experienced than you, sir, was also a bit depreciating (I won't bid my professional resume, and I've checked your impressive edits, no irony). So there, the discussion can now be nicer. With all that in mind, I value everyone's opinion in here. And in my opinion, all of my references are fine with the notability criteria: I've used no PR releases, no interviews support facts, no self-published content supports description of the company's activity. But if you feel they're not, and you have the urge for educating on semantics of media articles, I'm opened for discussions. Though please, no further analyses here, that would be an overkill. You can Wikipedia-email me for contact. Thank you, and best regards. — Kochas (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I specifically posted a link to the applicable guideline and further requested that you post a link to any reference that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability and you've demurred. Hmmmm OK, but your continued assertion that "all" the references are "fine with the notability guidelines" does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever as I see several that clearly don't (e.g. Primary sources, interviews, etc). Since there are 80 references, there's a chance that using Google Translate might provide an incorrect position and I was hoping you might point to at least one good reference - I will change my mind if references are produced. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Response @. Alright, I appreciate the dialogue. The company in question, and the equity crowdfunding trade are so recent, that most of my sources are media articles, and not books, nor academic papers (although I've added additional publications on equity crowdfunding alone, as Further Reading). Out of all quoted articles, I've picked a few of those that included the most of valuable facts worth featuring in the Wikipedia article:
 * “Beesfund Has Ambitious Plans...” — Major economy daily newspaper reports about the former Warsaw Stock Exchange chief executive joining the company. A fact that is supported by quotes from those concerned in the report. The piece also acknowledges the most fresh numbers about Beesfund, and confirms its nearest plans.
 * “Equity Crowdfunding – Can You See the Effects of a Larger Limit?...” — Trade website interviews the CEO. I'm quoting three minor numbers and one fact, found nowhere else, that add up to the context.
 * “Beesfund's Crowdfunding Honey” — Polish edition of Forbes longform feature from 2015, about the company's origins, mentions some key numbers that give an image of the company beginnings, and its first issuer.
 * “What Startups Are Worth Investing in?” and “The Potential Lies in Building the Community...” — I used five instances of minor objective additions from the interviews with the CEO (by the major daily newspaper) that contribute to the facts sourced from elsewhere (or to the EU law – eg. the paragraph Characteristics of the platform). Some of those additions are in fact repeated in other sources. Still, I've referenced fully aware the sentences with questionable (though not ineligible) sources, in order not to give the facts out from thin air.
 * Capital Collections Have Been Noticed — Another report in a trade stock-market newspaper that features facts, numbers, and amounts I've quoted in the article.
 * For the record, the table featured as Largest successfully completed projects is inevitably sourced from self-published materials, as Beesfund itself is a provider of the crowdfunding campaigns.
 * As with other instances of references with self-publishing characteristics, I've used the company's blog for quoting: the motto, the specific dates, and the platform's crowdfunding policies. Other self-publishing sources for the context support the amounts, or the names (as purely secondary, supporting sources) – eg. one of the reports on issuing shares of the football club Wisła Kraków (concerning more of the club, not Beesfund; a story widely present in Polish media), or the corporate report by the bank PKO Bank Polski.
 * Finally, before I clean this one up, I admit I've added an unnecessary press release that added nothing coherent to the article. — Kochas (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.