Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreatAuPair


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GreatAuPair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot find any reliable, independent sources that cover this company in depth. No indication that this company meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for corporations. In addition, it is promotional in tone. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Howicus. Thanks for the review. If there is any promotional tone, please indicate as such and I'll modify as that was not intended. GreatAuPair was the company that began the online au pair industry, which is notable. Please also see similarly situated company's wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Pair_in_America — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFactBase (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Department of State listing GreatAuPair as a designated Au Pair Sponsor http://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-search/?program=Au%20Pair Proof of Trademarks http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4804%3Ammz53i.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=greataupair&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query Certified Alliance Member http://www.alliance-exchange.org/au-pair-exchange BBB Recognizing GreatAuPair as A+ company http://www.bbb.org/central-texas/business-reviews/child-care-referral/greataupair-com-in-west-lake-hills-tx-1000103414/ Independent Industry Watchdog Review of GreatAuPair http://www.aupairclearinghouse.com/GreatAuPair WikiFactBase (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the above sources show that the company exists, not that it is notable., please have a look at the notability criteria Howicus mentions, the general notability guideline and the guideline for corporations. That's what is required for Wikipedia articles about companies. --bonadea contributions talk 20:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@bonadea please reconsider your vote. I have reviewed the notability guidelines and the guideline for corporations, and there is sufficient support based on the guidelines to keep the page. While the Au Pair category may not be as large as other well known categories, that does not mean that GreatAuPair is not notable within that category. Here are several third party articles referencing GreatAuPair to establish the fact that it is notable: References http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110528/ISSUE01/305289974/sittercity-races-to-spread-its-web-child-care-service http://www.moneytalksnews.com/4-tips-for-finding-a-reliable-babysitter/ http://www.dailyemerald.com/2015/01/22/cover-no-job-check-out-these-alternative-post-grad-plans/ http://www.thelocal.fr/jobs/article/demand-high-for-english-speaking-nannies-in-France http://www.iowastatedaily.com/special_sections/welcome_home/article_08078998-ef41-11e2-9f8c-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/for-young-grads-its-long-leap-from-college-to-career/1261914 http://beta.iol.co.za/travel/travel-news/taking-a-gap-year-know-your-facts-1611059 http://br.blastingnews.com/mundo/2015/07/13-maneiras-de-viajar-pelo-mundo-gastando-pouco-00474813.html http://themoscownews.com/local/20110711/188832128.html http://www.eliberico.com/donde-encontrar-una-familia-para-ser-au-pair.html http://www.ess.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2014/06/29/valivuosi-viinitilalla-tai-kielten-opettajana---ulkomailla-tyoskentelyyn-on-monia-mahdollisuuksia http://www.tv2.no/a/3364344 http://noticias.terra.com.br/mundo/vivernoexterior/interna/0,,OI862762-EI1292,00.html WikiFactBase (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete The list of sources at first seemed pretty impressive, but they're all incidental or extremely minimal mentions of the company. WP:CORP, one of the competent notability guidelines, is pretty clear that these shallow sorts of mentions don't qualify.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If you take a closer look, there are 195 news articles that mention GreatAuPair and 191 books that have published mentions of GreatAuPair relative to the services it provides. The General Notability Guideline states that the sources must be 1) Reliable, which they are; 2) Sources should be secondary, which they are; 3) Independent, which they are; and 4) "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Each of the referenced articles is relatively short, based on the content relating to the services provided by GreatAuPair. The fact that GreatAuPair gets as much ink as it does in a short article gives even greater weight to the mention. In each of the articles, the topic of GreatAuPair is referenced in light of the services it provides. If GreatAuPair was cited in only a handful of articles and books, your point would have merit, however given the large number of mentions by hundreds of different sources makes the mentions substantive, especially in a relatively small market and therefore meets the requirement for Significant Coverage.WikiFactBase (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as the current version is simply unacceptable considering there's no better third-party coverage such as news and magazine and would need to be restarted to be better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep @"SwisterTwister" Many of the 191 cited publications are quite reputable, Chicago Business and Tampa Bay Times for example, and are therefore acceptable. Over generalizing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater limits the value of wikipedia. WikiFactBase (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One !vote per user, please. -- Kinu  t/c 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ultimately, the links provided in the "references" section above are websites where the company's website gets a passing mention. There is no actual in-depth coverage about the website/company. Most of the sourcing provided consists of opinionated/vague lists of "useful" or similar websites, wherein this site gets a brief mention and is certainly not the primary topic. The "reliable sources" provided above merely show the company exists and do not convey notability. It does not appear that WP:GNG is met. -- Kinu  t/c 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As specified in WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. @ Kinu t/c points out that GreatAuPair is not the primary topic of the articles, which as noted above, is not required for establishing notability. The sourcing criteria for establishing notability are substantial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the fact that 195 publications and 191 books have cited GreatAuPair as an important company in its category is notable. As the first company of its kind in the United States, within its category, whether or not recognized by Wikipedians should in no way impugn the category's recognition that GreatAuPair is notable as having started the online caregiver marketplace, which was followed, some may say, copied by venture-backed startups gone public, which you might agree is demonstrable and thus notable.WikiFactBase (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these are substantial coverage. They're all trivial. -- Kinu  t/c 02:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The determination of notability is based on four factors as defined in WP:GNG. It has been established that the sources are 1) Reliable; 2) Third party; 3) Independent; and 4) Represent "Significant coverage". The argument of dismissing all coverage as trivial is overly broad and subjective given that coverage includes 195 publications and 191 published books, the volume and depth of which establishes coverage substantial enough to be considered notable.WikiFactBase (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to find out how this source, or quite frankly any of the ones you provided (all of which are of the same ilk), is even remotely "significant coverage". -- Kinu  t/c 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in several preceding paragraphs, you are citing one specific trivial mention and then broadly characterizing all 385 other publications in the same light, which is neither fair nor accurate. The proposed page is factual and non-promotional in nature. The company is notable for reasons already stated and sufficient evidence has been provided that substantially meets the requirements in WP:GNG. WikiFactBase (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not characterizing one of your sources as a trivial mention; rather, I am characterizing all of the sources you have provided above as trivial mentions. Your assertion that the existence of "385 publications" is evidence of notability is flawed. The onus is on those arguing to keep to show not only what or how many sources exist, but to show how they convey notability. What are these publications? Are they reliable sources? If so, can we glean anything non-trivial from those sources, or are they just passing mentions? None of the sources you have provided do anything more than briefly mention the company. Unless you can actually show that there are sources that discuss this company in a manner that is anything more than trivial, my !vote stands. -- Kinu  t/c 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Knoji, an independent, third party publisher maintains a knowledge base, offering consumer guides, where they profiled GreatAuPair in a substantial, non-trivial manner. HubPages, a reputable, independent, third party source also profiled GreatAuPair in a substantive, unbiased article: www.hubpages.com/hub/A-Review-of-the-Au-Pair-and-Nanny-Agency-GreatAuPaircom where GreatAuPair is the sole focus of the article. Further, an independent industry watchdog, Au Pair Clearinghouse profiled GreatAuPair through an agency review. None of these mentions could be construed as trivial as GreatAuPair is the sole topic of each article. So it is proven that there are in fact substantial, non-trivial mentions that characterize GreatAuPair as notable per WP:GNG.WikiFactBase (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be conflating existence with notability. If the best that exists is a directory-style site that reviews (with unclear editorial oversight) every program in existence and other sites that rely on user-generated content (like HubPages, which most certainly does not meet WP:RS), then I don't think anything is proven. -- Kinu  t/c 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) The fact that the company exists was established by posts early on in the thread and subsequent posts were provided to rebut false claims that over 385 publications and their coverage of GreatAuPair was trivial, so there's no conflating existence with the supporting evidence of notability. It's a given that a large number of trivial mentions exist - that's not contested. However, not all mentions are trivial as noted above. Since there appear to be a number of opinions cast about that refer to trivial mentions or sources insufficient to establish notability, let's look at the requirements of a source per WP:RS, as by doing so, we can separate opinion from fact.
 * Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable searches. Only trivial mentions.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft:GreatAuPair. I agree with the above editors that the sources here are insufficient to establish notability. I'd like to work on improving the article in draftspace with additional sources I have found. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no problem with the concept of a new article with proper sources being written about this company (assuming such sources can be found), but the current version is so bad, I would argue against moving it to draft.  Better to start fresh.  I've removed some of the worst material; there's not much left.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ===Definition of a source===


 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)


 * Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
 * --> Edina Stone, an industry expert who publishes reports and articles on the au pair industry and the companies that comprise it, wrote and published an independent article on GreatAuPair, and would most certainly be regarded as authoritative related to the subject and therefore a reliable source per WP:RS.

The GreatAuPair article substantially meets the requirements as defined in WP:GNG which states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Through several aforementioned posts in this thread, every comment to delete has been sufficiently rebutted with verifiable proof that GreatAuPair does in fact meet the following tests for notability, by providing sources that meet the following requirements:
 * Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * An example of a Reliable Source that has covered GreatAuPair in a substantial non-trivial manner.
 * --> http://www.aupairclearinghouse.com/Great_Au_Pair_USA_Program_Blog_Article


 * Sources Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
 * --> The source, Edina Stone reflects an unbiased neutral point of view based on her research and editorial discretion.


 * Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
 * --> As an independent publisher, Edina Stone and the Au Pair Clearinghouse does its own primary research for the protection of host families and au pairs and therefore has no affiliation with the subject of the article regarding GreatAuPair.


 * Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.
 * --> Based on the facts and not unsubstantiated opinions, the assumption can be drawn that the subject should be included. Concluding otherwise appears unduly biased and discounts the actual GNG as defined above.WikiFactBase (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the support provided by @Cunard and @RoySmith to constructively find ways to keep the page and not move it into drafts. RoySmith has substantially edited down the page, and as he said, there's not much left, yet it still has value. If there are any other constructive suggestions to support keeping the page, I'd welcome your input.WikiFactBase (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:CORP... I would be okay with it moving to draft, but I'm not sure it will meet the inclusion criteria any time soon. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:36, 27 October 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.