Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasshopper (company) (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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Grasshopper (company)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article by an apparent undeclared paid editor, on a borderline notable firm, with promotional content.

Company has no references except for information about initial funding which I consider mere notices, and self-serving interviews with the promoters, which I consider non-independent no matter where published. I've read the WSJ article, and I regard it as promotionalism inspired by a PR stunt.

Best ___ under 25 and the like are similar to youth awards in athletics, and do  not contribute to notability. If a company or firm does not have better to show, they are not notable. "Fastest growing" is also a gimmick for the not yet notable. , because the way to qualify for it is to go from essentially zero to very little.

As for promotionalism, names of products in Full capitals, a list of (non-notable) competitors, Managing to get in the name of the President of the US is blatant name dropping. A descriptive of the story of what I can best call their "cute meet" to found a product is a web site cliche. Such information can derive only from the two involved and is therefore not reliable, no matter where published.

It's going to be argued that the firm is notable. But it does not matter. Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. And it's unreasonable to expect volunteers to rewrite properly the hundreds of thousands of paid promotional articles that other people were paid for writing improperly.  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The only good source here is the WSJ article . But is it really WSJ? Partially, but it seems to be a syndicated (?) content / side blog from "editors of Dow Jones VentureWire" (blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/), through said editors are listed as "Reporter, Wall Street Journal". Still, it is a single source. NCOMPANY and other policies do say that a single source is not sufficient, and as such, I don't think this company cuts it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as my searches seemed to have found results at News and Books but nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister   talk  07:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and promotional.
 * The only genuine content in this article is in the "History" section.
 * The sections on "Products and Services" and "National Entrepreneurs' Day" are pure puffery.
 * The awards are nothing (and mostly not awards, anyway): four of them relate to the founders, not the company; "Internet telephony" is a genuine award, if very dated; and being 66 out of 500 on a big list isn't an award or even anything much to shout about.
 * "Competitors" is irrelevant.
 * As for the references: those that contain more than a passing reference are about the founders and not the company.
 * So where's the company's notability? One minor award, nine years ago. A clever marketing campaign involving chocolate. That's it.
 * Andyjsmith (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Read through it a couple of times and I compared it to their website. Seemed to be a cleaned up/simplified version of their about page.  Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:44, 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.