Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EzCater


 * 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 disagreement on the reliability of sources. In general, if one is to argue for a subject's notability by pointing to sources, it is better to go by quality rather than quantity. That is, it is better to submit a few good sources rather than many sources of questionable reliability. On level of support, the debate here is about evenly divided, but it is worth looking at the merits of the sources that Cunard provided, and the rebuttals against it.

In particular, I looked at two sources that there was no direct rebuttal to beyond a blanket statement that none of the references meet the requirement to establish notability.

First off is the book by Peter Cohan. I can only get a sampling of the book's content via Google Books, but the EzCater company is discussed, and not merely mentioned, in that book. I have not been able to establish any relation between Cohan and the subject.

Second is the Bloomberg source. According to WP:RSPSRC, much of the Bloomberg website is accepted as reliable sourcing, but there is a section of company profiles and biographical profiles that lack independence. Based on the content, this could be considered a profile, but the article has been published in Bloomberg's news section, and there are two authors, Verhage and Zaleski who I will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume to be independent of the subject. There was no direct rebuttal to the Bloomberg article, and it is arguably reliable.

At this point, I see two sources that are at least arguably reliable, and as such there is merit to the "keep" side of the debate. As such, a "no consensus" result defaults to retaining the article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

EzCater

 * – ( View AfD View log )

nonnotable company sourced almost entirely to press releases and local puff pieces. CUPIDICAE💕 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep This page passed AfC and has a lot of notable sources. They meet WP:N and WP:SIGCOV based on the list of existing sources and based on the sources I've added. 98.166.80.152 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Passing afc is not a bar of notability. It's one reviewers opinion that it has a 50/50 shot at AFD. CUPIDICAE💕  17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep ezCater is a well-known unicorn startup company (I believe they're on the 'Unicorn Startups list' on Wiki) and based on the amount of articles included on this page and after reading through them to ensure they meet WP:RS I would think this article passes the 'notability' criteria on Wikipedia. I've included a couple more supporting sources. If you don't think the articles provided as sources on this page prove that the company is notable I implore you to explore the sources further. 137.45.78.150 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Keep Current sources passexs WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you or anyone else mysteriously showing up care to provide those sources which are independent coverage? CUPIDICAE💕  12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book has a heading titled "Success Case Study: ezCater's Culture Helps Propel It to $700 Million Valuation". The book has a "Case Analysis" subheading that notes: "ezCater appeared to have taken its time to build a scalable business model and raised a significant amount of capital to boost its revenues to the point where it might be able to go public. While ezCater was in no hurry to get there, it appeared to have a clear idea of how it would be able to scale and was not being pushed by investor pressure to which other companies might succumb."  The article notes: "For the past 21 years, serial startup founder Stefania Mallett has been seeking venture capital, usually from white male investors. Late last week, she finalized her biggest investment yet, $100 million to grow EzCater Inc., a startup she co-founded 10 years ago to connect businesses with catering from local restaurants. ... EzCater's funding round is the largest secured by a female founder and CEO in tech this year."  The article notes: "Online catering marketplace ezCater is not your typical unicorn--if the fact you've perhaps never heard its name doesn't make that readily apparent. For one thing, the company is based not in Silicon Valley, but rather in Boston. Its founder isn't a young man armed with an MBA, it's Stefania Mallett, a veteran executive who is now 63. Nevertheless, ezCater--an online marketplace for catered meal delivery--is valued at $1.25 billion following a $150 million funding round led by Lightspeed Venture Partners in April. The business has doubled sales eight years running--and if it does so again in 2020, it'll hit $1 billion in orders."  The article includes analysis about ezCater: "EzCater has followed a somewhat nontraditional path as a startup, bootstrapping for years before taking on funding in 2011. ... It works similar to consumer-facing food ordering platforms like GrubHub or Seamless, only for catering orders placed in advance."</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow EzCater to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Note The applicable SNG for determining whether references can be used to establish notability is WP:NCORP and not GNG (as has been confirmed at the RfC at WP:N. The result is that "echo chamber" references which are based on company announcements, interviews, quotations, financial results, funding announcements, etc, fall outside of establishing notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references (including those posted by Cunard above) meet the requirements for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. If any Keep !voters believe there are references that meet the requirements, post a link below and lets see. As it is, topic may pass GNG (which is irrelevant for examining sources to establish notability as per the RfC at WP:N) but fails WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing. Forbes non-staff and TechCrunch are classic bad sources. WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid. The guiding criteria here are WP:NCORP criteria for identifying dependent sources. This article cannot fail WP:NCORP and be sustainable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: EzCater passes both Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). The sources I provided meet Notability (organizations and companies), which says: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." The Apress book has a case study about ezCater that says, "ezCater appeared to have taken its time to build a scalable business model and raised a significant amount of capital to boost its revenues to the point where it might be able to go public. While ezCater was in no hurry to get there, it appeared to have a clear idea of how it would be able to scale and was not being pushed by investor pressure to which other companies might succumb." This is independent analysis from the author Peter Cohan. That the case study includes quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire case study non-independent. The Bloomberg News article includes analysis by noting that "EzCater's funding round is the largest secured by a female founder and CEO in tech this year", while the Inc. article notes that "Online catering marketplace ezCater is not your typical unicorn--if the fact you've perhaps never heard its name doesn't make that readily apparent. For one thing, the company is based not in Silicon Valley, but rather in Boston. Its founder isn't a young man armed with an MBA, it's Stefania Mallett, a veteran executive who is now 63." That they include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire articles non-independent. The Bloomberg News and Inc. sources are about the company getting funding and being valued at $1.25 billion. But they are not just "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" (Notability (organizations and companies)) since they provide a substantial overview and analysis about the company. An AfD participant, Alalch Emis, wrote about a "Forbes non-staff" article. The 2017 Forbes article I provided is from "Brian Solomon, Former Staff". According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/, "Brian Solomon was a Forbes staff writer from 2011 to 2017." The same AfD participant wrote, "WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid." This is a defamatory allegation that is made without evidence against Katie Roof, the writer of The Wall Street Journal article and is a violation of WP:BLPTALK. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Response You have extracted particular comments from each of the articles but you haven't looked at the extracts in the context of the overall article. None of the articles go beyond summarizing information provided by the company or their executives. Extracting a single sentence here and there which are embedded in verbatim interviews or commentary on announcements is not "Independent Content" but a summary of what has been said. Your quote from CORPDEPTH is intended to give the impression that anything other than a reprint of a company announcement is OK, but you fail to acknowledge the example at ORGIND which states that "Dependent Coverage" that is not sufficient to establish notability includes "any material that is substantially based on such press released even if published by independent sources" and also other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself''. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I retract the "forbes non-staff" statement. I stand by my suspicion towards the WSJ article, I'm 110% entitled to it. The suspicion is based on the content, form (length in particular) which are highly resembling of self-submitted material for publishing — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, the "sites" part of the Forbes website is, in general, said to not fall under editorial scrutiny - lots of editors assume that if the articles are written by staff members then they are OK but this is debatable. Nonetheless, even if we take the Forbes article at face value, it fails ORGIND. The article uses lots of phrases attributing the facts to company sources - for example after the basic intro it says "On Wednesday, ezCater announced ..." and then moves on to "In an interview with FORBES, ezCater cofounder and CEO Stefania Mallett said ..." and this interview takes up most of the article. Other paragraphs start with "ezCater claims to be ...", "It boasts nearly ...", "Mallett says the company is ..." and "According to PitchBook ...". This is "echo-chamber" reporting but isn't useful for establishing the veracity or notability of the company as none of the claims are independently checked as they are all attributed. There isn't an iota of Independent Content (as defined by WP:ORGIND) and therefore that source fails NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per other sources and keep arguments above. I think there's just about enough for notability. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Response This isn't a counting of !votes. Which sources pass NCORP? What arguments are you supporting (bearing in mind that GNG-based arguments are technically irrelevant since NCORP is the applicable guideline for determining the applicability of sources). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources provided by Cunard above seem to be the extent of meaningful coverage; with that said, I agree with HighKing about the quality of the sources. Coverage of financials, acquisitions aren't significant commentary per NCORP as presented. A lot of them read as PR/puff pieces that doesn't suggest independence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 23:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - If I compare this article's references with WP:NCORP's analysis table, almost none pass all 4 criteria (SIRS). I do feel that NCORP has raised the standard pretty high for corporations - but we should go by it. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Dial911 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Where, exactly, is notability supposed to lie here? A hell of a lot of re-hashed press releases. Content about the founder but not significant, independent and reliable sources talking about the subject - I don't see that. The arguments above do concern me that payment is probably involved somewhere in the process. In my view this fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.