Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenPal


 * 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 keep. Consensus is the cleanup by Cunard negates any issues from sockpuppets. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

GreenPal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was created by a recently banned sockpuppet a few months before he was banned. It's an advertisement for a lawn service firm, supported by "references" that are either PR, or notices of entry into a market, or about the general topic of similar actually notable firms. A respected editor has tried to rescue it by removing the worst of the advertising, but I think it is not rescuable, because there are no actually independent reliable sources.( If there were, Cunard would have added them). Thee is also the question of whether we should even try to rescue articles like this. The other articles from this editor have been deleted, and this should be also. It's the only way to stop paid editing in WP, when the paid editing is used to insert promotional articles.

I am also listing the article on the founder of the company. The same reasons apply. It's equally promotional. Some of the refs are different. They're apparent PR insertions in articles about a range of businesses, where his business is used as one of the many examples.

I congratulate the PR agent for their ability to get these mentions and articles placed. But they should have known to stay away from WP.  DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Selected sources with analysis    From Notability (organizations and companies): "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The article includes negative analysis of GreenPal: "But with every business comes some bad reviews. KMGH did some research and a lot of gripes came from customers who said vendors set up times of arrival and then never show up. Others write about their frustrations of unsatisfactory work."   The article provides analysis about GreenPal by comparing it to its competitor Lawn Love: "The two services have their differences. GreenPal, for instance, leaves it to up to vendors to determine pricing for jobs while Lawn Love has set rates for services. And Lawn Love handles the customer service side of the equation, whereas GreenPal does not.  Even still, the two companies’ purpose of matching homeowners with lawn care pros is the same, and that doesn’t appear to be an Uber-sized business — at least not yet."  <li> The article provides analysis about GreenPal by comparing it to its competitor Lawn Love: "Lawn Love doesn’t offer customers multiple bids as GreenPal does, but instead takes over the logistics so the customer doesn’t have to. ... Both Lawn Love and GreenPal can be used to set up seasonal plans. But the on-demand requests might not be that quick because there is still a “pecking order” that must be followed, Mr. Mitlo said." The article provides analysis by casting doubt on the accuracy of GreenPal's comparison to Uber: "Both companies like to compare their platform to an “Uber for lawn care,” but it could be tricky to replicate the snow removal service in the same instantaneous, on-demand fashion. Contractors pointed to problems with getting from one side of the city to the other in a timely enough fashion to meet the customer’s requests or the added liability of damaging shrubbery or scraping up concrete when they have never seen the property not covered in a blanket of snow." <li> The article includes criticism of GreenPal from a customer: "'I trusted that this service this lawn service would do a great job ... so I went ahead and I submitted payment,' Florida customer Maria Alithinos said. 'That's my mistake.' Alithinos used the app to hire a company in May in Tampa. She paid before she realized what they had actually done. ... She said she tried to get her money back but the company said no.  ... Months later, she never got a response. ...'If you’re taking money from a provider or if you taking money from a consumer, you need to have customer service,' Alithinos said."</li> <li> The article includes analysis from a professor: "Angela Mattia, chairwoman of the Information Management Department at Jacksonville University, said she was unaware of the GreenPal business in Jacksonville. But she’s not surprised the Uber paradigm has spread to other industries. “It’s definitely where the trend is going,” Mattia said. “It’s kind of along the lines of what Angie’s List was a few years ago.” Mattia said there are many other services already operating on the mobile application paradigm. As those apps are getting more sophisticated, Mattia said it’s likely going to be common for those kind of apps to be available for many kinds of manual labor work."</li> <li> The article includes analysis of how GreenPal uses "the application of new tech" to make cutting grass "that much easier": "Like GymGuyz and the in-home personal trainer model, calling a landscaping service out to your home to cut the grass is nothing new. What differentiates these business is the application of new tech to make it that much easier. Nashville, Tenn.-based GreenPal’s twist on the idea is it allows participating lawn care companies to bid on projects posted to the app or website by customers. Then the customers, who have access to company ratings, reviews and prices, pick a winner."</li> </ol> Additional sources  <ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GreenPal to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Merge/redirect Bryan M. Clayton to GreenPal as Clayton is not independently notable of GreenPal. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GreenPal is neutrally written. If editors consider the article to violate the Neutral point of view policy, I ask them to explain how so that I can remove any text that violates the policy. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge Bryan M. Clayton to GreenPal. The founder is not notable outside of his company. As noted above, there is significant coverage on the company to keep it's page. ~RAM (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep  Keep both greenpal and Clayton pages. Both have significant coverage. Just implying that news are all PR generated and congratulating them for using a good PR firm, without providing any evidence or proof is not a justification for deletion.  Some of these appear to be respected publications with hard copies, such as Tampa Bay times, Times of San Diego, The Missouri Times, The Courier. Star Tribune. I just don't buy the nominator's argument that these are all PR. Looking at Clayton, he also has coverage in WSJ (twice), NBC news, Entrepreneur, CBS, American Express, etc. Also many of these sources would work for GreePal too, but not used in GreenPal page. I find it hard to believe someone could buy this much press, especially since the writers in many top publications could lose their jobs for accepting fees for writing. I do believe some of that is going on with smaller publications. So based on Peter303x (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep  both, per above. Both GreenPal and Bryan M. Clayton clearly meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. There isn't much reason to merge a notable person who is clearly covered by some of America's top reliable sources like the WSJ, NBC, Times of San Diego, and more. Nyangaman4 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep x2 pages Cunard did a great analysis. Each article IMO stands on it's own through enough citations independent of the other article.  The page about GreenPal comps with AirBnB, Uber, DoorDash and other app-style-get-it-immediately technology that is significant, and there is significant coverage in this area.  Bryan_M._Clayton page does have a couple shared references, but has significant coverage in very reliable sources that are not shared with the GreenPal page.   Tennis Anyone? Talk  16:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously meets SIGCOV with lots of secondary reliable sources for each. Expect there will be opportunities to improve this subject as time goes on Duncan079 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Cunard's references are besides the point. notability is not the only reason for deletion. The use of WP for advertising is an even stronger reason, one of the fundamental ruules in WP:NOT. I am at a  loss for why people think WP should include advertising, or why   otherwise good editors should facilitate PR.   There's a simple way of telling: any article containing a quote from the founder should be assumed to be PR.. That is not encyclopedic content; of course we can remove it, but the purpose of including it can only be promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * comment 2' If we had detected the sockpuppettry a few weeks earlier, this would have been a speedy G5. (creation by sockpuppet of banned user) . There are admins who would delete it under G5 nonetheless, on the basis that the difference is only technical, and the sockpuppettry is evident. I consider that a reasonable admin action, and I considered doing it, but decided not to, because I thought the deletion on bringing it here would be obvious enough-- and because, in admin actions, I try to act as conservatively as possible.  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep My google search makes this look notable. While the article may have started as PR and the original editor may have had questionable motivation, the subject bases notability guidelines  Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. Fulfills WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.