Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange


 * 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. The combined weight of WP:PAG based discussion and analysis of sources comes down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Harvest Exchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. References are mix of churnalism. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Agree with nomination. Sig missing by User:LikeMeercats. Added by scope_creep (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I've made a full breakdown of sources. Some are from major news outlets likes Reuters or Forbes, and most of the articles were published by staff writers, journalists and reporters - no contributors or self-published writers. While the usual crunchbase and bloomberg profiles are useless, there is enough coverage to pass GNG. Definitely a keep vote.

⚜ L i t h O l d o r ⚜ (T) 22:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi ⚜ L i t h O l d o r ⚜  That is a very nice table, but you need to examine each ref in turn.
 * Ref 2 is a primary ref, and cant be used to establish notability. It is also a classic churnalism article.
 * Ref 5 is a primary ref, and is them applying for an award. It is also an interview and Non RS.
 * Ref 6 is a /site subdomain of Forbes, which is used for webhosts. It Non RS, meaning it is not applicable.
 * Ref 9 is primary, discussing the startup funding. It it a primary ref. It is also churnalism, and is not classed as a quality reference.
 * Ref 10 is primary, discussing the startup funding. It it a primary ref. It is also churnalism, and is not classed as a quality reference. Also look at this: This is paid to post articles, meaning it is Non RS.
 * Ref 11 is also Non RS.
 * Ref 12 is churnalism, and a press release. Non RS.
 * Ref 13 is churnalism, and a press release. Non RS.

There is no secondary sources to to establish notability. It is all classic startup news, with a mix of churnalism, funding news and some press releases, and Non RS source thrown in for good measures. All in all rank, and what WP:NCORP was designed to mitigate against. scope_creep (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs discussion about the sources LithOldor made a breakdown of.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to agree with the nom and his analysis of the indeed very nice table. Unfortunately a lot of those refs are low quality due to being interviews or Churnalism. Let's face it - this can be easily discerned from the article itself, which reads like 'startup business as usual'. Nothing makes this company special, through it does seem to be investing good amount of $$ into churnalism and related PRs. We should not be an outlet for their self promotion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete My own analysis—very much per scope_creep—of the sources (sorry, far less colourful tha above, yet, I suggest, more accurate!) indicates that there is a serious dearth of the persistent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet the minimum requirements of WP:NCORP; the coverage consists solely of passing mentions, directory entries, blogs, tabloids, WP:SPS, press releases and social media. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because I do not think sources like Reuters can allow churnalism and it is obvious for an organization to have more passing mentions than in depth coverage which publishes researches and analysis in Financial domain. Treianlatri (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2018 (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.