Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipboard


 * 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. Consensus is that this company/online database does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. North America1000 01:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Equipboard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Most of the sources appear to be unreliable, or contain trivial coverage. Of the sources in the article, this was the best coverage. Online coverage seemed to include lots of mere mentions and blogs, but nothing substantial in a reputable place. signed,Rosguill talk 04:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I took a look at this website and I think I am a fan. I like what the company is doing and while this article seems to be a mess with the way it was written, I think the company provides a unique service in a very popular industry. With further research it might be notable enough at least for a stub but this article needs TNT and might be candidate for AfC if they can't come up with a non-promotional stub or article. Obviously this version needs to go but I wouldn't discount the subject matter as I think it would be good to be included. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Question ScienceAdvisor what specifically do you mean when you say the “article seems to be a mess with the way it was written?” Some specific feedback would help me improve the article. I like what Equipboard is doing too and believe they are worthy of inclusion. They have been cited in 80 Wikipedia articles. --Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ubiquitouslarry the entry is very advertorial. The list of further reading is essentially a duplicate of the references below and if it isn't then it should be. There is no reason that the types of affiliate programs the site participates is of any interest in an encyclopedic entry. The external links at the bottom should probably only include the company website since there is no reason that Wikipedia should be used to help fundraise or direct traffic to the company's Angel.Co webpage. There are a number of issues but that doesn't mean the company isn't notable enough for a page if someone either cleaned this article up or just started over. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also i think the page's references need to be cleaned and brought up to date. These look older like from when the company was trying to justify a wiki entry. I would hope their have been more relevant sources by now from NY Times, Forbes, WSJ, or even magazines and trade journals.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reply ScienceAdvisor The further reading was all of the news coverage that I had gathered. Some of it was cited in the article, some wasn’t. Sure, it could be trimmed down. The mentioning of affiliate programs was to explain how Equipboard earns its money. I believe it is a legitimate datapoint. The article on Amazon talks about how they generate money. Equipboard should have similar coverage. I was careful not to drop names of individual affiliates. I saw the angel.co, Crunchbase, and 500 Startups entries more as indexes of the company’s revenue, and less as a revenue generators. I can see removing two of them. But keeping one would be helpful seeing as the information is not available on their company website. I have been unable to find more relevant news sources.Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ubiquitouslarry I'm going to be polite since you seem close to the company. If you have to ask why Equipboard doesn't deserve the same coverage as Amazon, which might be the most valuable company in the world, accounts for 50% of internet purchases, and has millions of media mentions then I might as well change my vote to delete right now. The changes I suggested are not hard and do not affect the integrity of an article describing what this company does. This company is barely notable if it actually is. I do think the concept is original enough that it probably deserves a stub because it appeals to a certain demographic of music lovers. Most of your press is around two points: 1) Being accepted into 500 Startups and 2) Ed Sheeran's performance resulting in the crashing their site. Most editors on here would probably have this page deleted since it is entirely promotional, focuses very little on the product the company provides and very little media that focuses on the company or their products. That is probably a failure of their marketing and communications dept but is still a valid point. I would delete everything after history except a link to their company website. You would be better off with 3-5 good references and a small article stub. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ScienceAdvisor I in no way meant to be combatative with my comments. And you are right, Amazon’s achievements far eclipse anything that Equipboard has achieved. The point I was arguing was that other companies (Amazon included) list their business models. It was a question I asked when I first looked into the company. Listing the business model seemed to be part of the encyclopedic definitionUbiquitouslarry (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ubiquitouslarry that looks much better and more encyclopedic. I wouldnt remove the references to the Ed Sheeran event because a couple of those articles, if I remember, actually talk in detail about the company and help establish notability beyond just their startup fundraising. Also Angel.co I don't believe is referencable since the account is created by the company itself and not professionally edited. I would definitely look for a few more articles, tv segments and websites that talk about the company's product, collaborations with Artists, and the information they are aggregating. The aspects that differentiate them from other startups and make them unique. If that can be done I certainly think this article should be considered for a keep. Either way, I think the new article you have looks much cleaner and is more likely to pass once you add some references that establish notability. From what I can tell they are doing something unique in the very high publicity market. Good luck with this article, I hope you can convince talk:Rosguill and the editors to keep the page. I think having an online database of the instruments artists use will generate a treasure trove of great archival information which would definitely make it notable for an entry in Wikipedia. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NTEMP. The referenced stories seem primarily about the startup organizers/funders, with this company typically being mentioned in a list and all from several years ago. In a quick search for newer commentary, I came up with zero external references. ogenstein (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are very poor and fails WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 10:28, 14 May 2019 (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.