Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company)


 * 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. In terms of numbers, disapproval for what is assumed to be the promotional motive for the article's creation is matched by opinions noting that it meets the notability guideline. Neither argument compels deletion or retention according to our policies, so it's a draw.  Sandstein  08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Circle (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. & Promotional, There are references, but they are limited to information about the initial funding of the company and PR influenced articles about its possible future prospects. This do not show any RW significance, and, according to WP:N, we are not obliged to make articles about whatever might happen to just slide  under the GNG subguideline. In deciding whether to make them, we cshould be influenced by the extent of promotionalism. As for that, look at the next to last paragraph. Furthermore, it's been written by a SPA with two articles to his credit: this, and an article on the firm's CEO. It's reasonable to assume an undeclared conflict of interest.  DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks WP:TOOSOON per normal AfD
 * Speedy Delete per undisclosed paid editing. Cutting to a stub isn't the right measure this time. (stable door, horse, bolted) Widefox ; talk 10:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * or Merge/Redirect to Jeremy Allaire (in current stub form) as doesn't add any more than the section there. Widefox ; talk 22:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, maybe I'm missing something here, but with lengthy articles about the company in Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ over the past 18 months, this isn't an article I'd consider for deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you normally. Need to say that this is part of a promo cleanup - see the connected on the talk. Coming back to normal AfD, what do they do? Where's the beef? Widefox ; talk 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says. The wired article for example, is not about the company's accomplishments, which seem to be non-existent,  but about the promise of it and what it acknowledges are "a slew of other technical startups" that are trying to do the same thing. In my opinion, articles about the initial financing of a company do not show suitability for an encycopedia. Rather than tinker with the concept of notability, this could best  be handled by a new provision in WP:NOT, called perhaps NOT STARTUP. I intend to formally propose this in a week or so-- I'm trying to figure out the best wording. In the meantime we can accomplish the same thing by deleting the articles here -- we can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Candidates for raising the bar:


 * WP:NOTNEWS
 * Churnalism - to treat PR/primary sources as primary not secondary
 * WP:CORPDEPTH - adding to the existing
 * "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"
 * "announcements of funding rounds of the business" ? Widefox ; talk 02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the Jeremy Allaire article is awful and I'm surprised nothing has been done about it. However, the articles cited in the Circle (company) are in major, respected publications and are substantial, not brief announcements. There are plenty of bloated articles about companies on Wikipedia that are cited to press releases, trade journals and blogs, but this isn't one of them. If we don't trust the NYT and WSJ then we might as well give up, or re-write Wikipedia's ground rules. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, removing all the funding round articles, this has WIRED and NYT which are articles with info we can use to write about the subject. It appears useful to raise the bar in this way and provides clarity for assessing notability (this one would be borderline unless more non-excluded sources are added). The proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Widefox ; talk 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - a clear, and easy to see, passing of WP:GNG and WP:CORP per the numerous significant writeups in independent and reliable sources.  All discussion of changing policies should be done elsewhere.   --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudpung's argument (and the nom) answer that. In guideline form, it's IAR for the improvement of WP plus the guidelines follow best practice, which is in this direction (I believe). Widefox ; talk 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - and preferably speedily.  Purely  promotional and obviously  a case of someone 'mistakenly'  believing  that  Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not  understanding  the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial  networking  site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it  is part  of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not,  has said all  that  needs to  be said already. Wikipedia cannot  be allowed to  be used for profit in this way at  the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that  dedicated users spend building  this encyclopedia which in  spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended  to be an additional business networking  platform. Whether the text  itself sounds promotional  or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption  of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. I share that sentiment at Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination). Widefox ; talk 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It got financing, so what? Business as usual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete preferably speedily, per 's emerging BOGO philosophy nicely articulated above, 's emerging NOT STARTUP philosophy, as well as his "lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion" stated elsewhere (my emphasis). WP articles shouldn't be a way for paid actors to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company and its execs. I've been over this ground many, many times at COIN and it just takes time away from adding WP content. As an independent and sufficient rationale, the article is three sentences long and shows little prospect for growing meaningfully – that is beyond mentioning money moving from one bank account to another – until and unless this startup actually produces something; therefore WP:TOOSOON. — Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and please quit this stuff. Passes WP:GNG, no dern question about it.  Attempts to redefine WP:GNG should be pursued in talkspace (WT and usertalk).  AfD is not for cleanup, and if the article passes WP:GNG as presently written, then nominating for AfD is the wrong thing.  AfD is also not for revenge on the eeevilll allegedly undisclosed paid editors, either, there is a tool for that, and both Kudpung and DGG possess said tool.  Bangkeep rationale, using only the extant refs, just for kicks:  WSJ Apr'15, && Wired Apr'15, plus Boston Globe Mar'14, && NYT Mar'14. make me strongly suspect that WP:GOOG might just hold a few more WP:SOURCES about the company.  But even if it didn't, those four seem sufficient, to my wiki-eyes, to pass WP:GNG as currently written.
 * Now, to be fair, this one is straight republication of PR, and I've removed it from mainspace. The others I mention ARE NOT regurgitated press releases, they are impeccably WP:RS, and if you don't like it, get WP:RS and/or WP:GNG redefined.  But stop WP:IDONTLIKEIT here at AfD, please pretty please.  Or at least, target something *worthy* of getting booted from wikipedia, like Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber, not corporate vehicles like Circle (company) where millions of dollars are involved... oh.  Right.  Uh... hmmm... maybe I better rethink my WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the teen-pop-stars, huh, if I think that millions of bucks tied up in Circle_(company) and the corresponding press-coverage is wiki-notable, then maybe Hannah Montana as the vehicle for Disney advertising is also wiki-notable?  Could be a teachable moment here.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally false analogy. Hannah Montana has a measurable effect on culture. Maybe pop culture, but culture nonetheless. Which is why we have Hannah Montana discography and other things. What would be the difference to the world if Circle had never been created? — Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not false whatsoever: both are young creatures, being used by hypercorps, to generate ROI. Measurable impact:  mainly, that Goldman Sachs would still be calling bitcoin 'not a safe store of value' rather than investing fifty million bucks?  Whether this has an outright-revolutionary effect on society (business&consumer society but society nonetheless), over the next two decades, or "merely" an economic impact on the ecommerce business and globalization of finance, depends on WP:CRYSTAL, but that single sea-change event has legitimized bitcoin as a payment-transfer-system, if not necessarily as a currency.  This isn't me blabbering, this is why the most recent coverage-burst made the LATimes/etc.  See the nearest WP:GOOG, or the article-talkpage.  Granted, it's not as big as walmart.com hypothetically saying they'll henceforth be accepting bitcoin, but it's a definitive shift from edgy, to edgy-but-mainstream.  That said, as you know very well, this thread is ENTIRELY out of scope for AfD... where we decide whether WP:GNG has been demonstrated, not muse about 'true' cultural and societal impact.  If the WP:42 fits, you must acquit.  There's a very good reason that we use WP:GNG, rather than philosophical discussion amongst wikipedians about what is truly and really and measurably 'important' ... because WP:GNG is something we all can agree on, more or less.  Hannah Montana does not belong in the encyclopedia, but she does pass WP:GNG, so I don't try deleting her -- nor her discography.  Quid pro quo, is that people who dislike corporations, money, startups, business, bitcoin, investing, crytography, and whatever else seems to be the hang-up here at this AfD, should not be trying to delete *this* article, since it also so passes.  WP:GNG is a long-standing compromise, and it shall not be successfully be redefined here at AfD, methinks, whether this one or another one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would really like people to stop telling me what to talk about at AfD. As you yourself have noted elsewhere [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sierra_Vista_Mall_(3rd_nomination)&diff=680123479&oldid=679970490], IAR is on the table at debates. But more to the point, these debates create "Wiki case law" where precedents and parameters for valid arguments are established and reinforced. This isn't a trivial objection like "I don't like their circular logo"; this is a debate deeply grounded in interpretation of WP notability and the broader issue raised that WP:GNG is a reason to delete, not always a reason to keep, in the case of promotional editing (apologies if I have misrepresented). — Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I say too.  DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, perfectly fair assessment. Truth be told, I suspect I'm annoyed at AfD being used as a way to re-define GNG, mostly because I believe many AfD regulars are deletionists.  ;-)      I am happy to stop telling you both what to do, and will do so immediately, apologies if anyone was put out.  :-)      But I'm also happy that you admit you are pulling out-of-process WP:IAR here, and not using AfD for the wiki-traditional function of determining whether WP:GNG (as presently written) has in fact been demonstrated.  Circle actually has 42 sources, quite literally, which seems to be what the proposed neo-WP:42 definition we are discussing here would require for corp-articles henceforth... except that, you know, sources about fifty million in funding are not REALLY wiki-reliable sources, so we can delete those, and these other sources in the business section, no boring business news is ever REALLY wiki-notable so let us delete those sources.... You catch my drift.  I hate it when people advocate deleting things as 'not encyclopedic' ... especially sources.  Anyways, I'll keep my whining about this-is-not-the-place to myself.  Because I too love WP:IAR, and I too would like to see some real solutions for the problems being (somewhat tangentially) discussed here.  I just strongly disagree that it is any kind of 'solution' is to selectively redefine GNG and delete half a million articles.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:75.108.94.227 Do you have any evidence for a "ROI"? Else that whole argument is WP:CRYSTAL and, in fact, underlines WP:TOOSOON. As for telling others what to do, you can add me to your list making three not two. It's a bit boomerang here, as it comes across WP:ILIKEIT (and don't like Hannah Montana), and if we delete this we must delete 1/2 million articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. No kittens (or Hannah Montana articles) will be hurt by this AfD. The bigger the investment WP:NEWS is, the more likely there's something encyclopaedic going on sooner or later, but this isn't Yellow Pages, Linked-in or Techcrunch. We have no duty to list all funded startups. Don't get me wrong, GNG vs promo - two valid opinions to take here. I'm voicing my concern that this should be transparent and a free decision, at a point where the promo weeding needs doing and maybe replanting. Do we want to replant before the weeds are gone, including all their invisible roots? Coming back to the point, the sources all look too shallow to build a useful encyclopaedic article on what they do. It's already covered in his article. Widefox ; talk 09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Mainly because I found plenty more sources which show that coverage isn't restricted to the two rounds of funding that all the current RS present in the article stem from: e.g. Dec 14 Sep 14 Oct 13. If these aren't sufficient to meet WP:CORP then we need to delete hundreds of thousands of articles. While I understand the sentiment of the !deletes with regards to discouraging promotional editing, the article has been cleaned up and this isn't the place for argue for exceptions from well-established guidelines. Deleting articles purely because of them being the result of PE has never been policy and for good reason as we'd be spiting ourselves. There are plenty of good sources available which could be used to write a neutral and informative article. SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "as we'd be spiting ourselves" Agreed, crucial point.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , the key sentence in the NYT story seems to be this: "another indication that leaders in the traditional financial services industry are now taking digital money seriously". WSJ: "Circle's offering isn't ground breaking". Forbes: "Circle's entry into the market adds another business with serious funding and experience attempting to take the 4-year-old Bitcoin into the mainstream". I can see where you're coming from, but I still see the sources saying not-yet-notable startup attempting to do something important. Maybe these sources should be added to the Bitcoin article, or to wire transfer instead? — Brianhe (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jeremy Allaire for now as although the article is better sourced now, in any case, it may be closer connected to him until the company establishes itself more. SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - or redirect to Jeremy Allaire. The references right now are all due to their fundraising activities. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is WP:TOOSOON, at least.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article provides a detailed profile of Circle.   <li> The article provides a detailed profile of Circle, adding a footnote about the funding in the second-to-last paragraph.</li> <li> This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.</li> <li> This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.</li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Circle to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Delete per WP:TNT. The sources discussed above by Cunard and others could be the basis of an article that actually describes the company and what it does. But what we have now appears to be purely a vehicle for investment promotion. Look what a good value this company is! Famous people poured money into it! Feh. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While the article certainly can be expanded, the article is neutrally written and reliably sourced. WP:TNT clearly does not apply. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (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.