Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helpling


 * 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. After three re-lists, there is still no sign of any consensus here, and both directions being advocated by established editors with reasonable arguments. No prejudice to a future re-listing at AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Helpling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Everything here is either promotional or a trivial notice about funding. Interviews where the founder says what they want to are not reliable sources for notability or for anything else, except for what they (or their pr advisor) thinks will be effective. advertising for their enterprise.

See adjacent AfD for the article on the founder.  DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Cleaning: Helpling Helpling mediates between private cleaners and private households via its website, with the cleaner being hired by the household. At the time of the analysis, Helpling charges a fee of 20 percent of the hourly rate (14.90 euro) for its service. Applicants for work as cleaners via Helpling are pre‐screened before being admitted to the platform, which includes an intake interview to discuss the individual's motivation, a CV, references and work experience, and a test of the applicant's understanding of what cleaning involves. The prospective cleaner also has to submit a Certificate of Good Conduct (interview Helpling). The platform uses a rating system regarding the quality, reliability, and sociability of the cleaner. The public debate concerning the cleaning platform Helpling concentrates on the social protection and the remuneration of the task provider. The current regulatory framework regarding cleaning in the home, the Home Services Regulation (HSR), was drawn up in January 2007 to protect the legal status of domestic cleaners. Working conditions include a safe and healthy workplace, minimum wage, and 8 percent holiday pay, paid annual leave and sick leave (for a maximum of 6 weeks). Cleaners are responsible for their own tax declaration. The HSR is not effective in practice, however, partly because private clients are not familiar with it. Instead, the large majority of Dutch household who rent cleaners, do so offline in the informal market and without any contract.6 Helpling applies the HSR as guideline (such as minimum wage including holiday pay) and also sends cleaners an annual statement of income which they can use to file their tax returns. An unknown share of cleaners may not pay tax, knowing that Helpling will not disclose their personal details and income to the tax authorities. This links to the public interest of fair competition. One can argue that Helpling is competing unfairly with regular cleaning companies, because few cleaners on their platform pay taxes and often have no social security (interview OSB). Interestingly, in the public debate about Helpling there is little focus on the question of whether Helpling is not in fact an employer or a temp agency. The platform makes use of clients' reviews and in this way indirectly conducts continual quality checks on cleaners. Repeatedly poor performance reviews result in a talk and, ultimately, a cleaner may be denied access to the platform. Helpling also sets the hourly rate for a cleaning task. All this leads to a dependency relationship between platform and cleaner, with many cleaners acquiring a large proportion of their income through Helpling. To avoid being considered as an employer, Helpling performs no quality checks and deliberately does not give cleaners any instructions. Cleaners are also free to choose where and when they offer their services. More recently, Helpling changed its pricing policy, allowing cleaners to set their own price."  This article has the same authors as the first source. The article notes: "This chapter considers the case of Helpling, a digital platform for domestic cleaning services. The key public interest addressed in this case study is the occupational status and legal position of the cleaner. The chapter starts with an introduction to Helpling. The existing cleaning market and how public interests are safeguarded in it are described in section 4.2, where we show that the legislative and regulatory framework for the sector has been under discussion for some time. Section 4.3 reviews the legal position of the domestic cleaner and the status of Helpling. Should Helpling be seen as an intermediary or an employer? And how can the legal position of domestic cleaners be safeguarded? The chapter concludes with an overview of the issues relating to public interests in the domestic cleaning market and the possibilities for strengthening the safeguards." The article notes: "Helpling is a newcomer in the cleaning industry. The digital platform was founded in Germany in 2014 and operates in the domestic cleaning market. Helpling's founder secured an investment from Rocket Internet26 and shortly afterwards expanded the business into other countries, including the Netherlands."  The article notes: "Teddle began last April as a marketplace in which any demand could be listed, from clearing wisteria to teaching piano lessons. For co-founder Alex Depledge, it was a way to use the internet to make even the tiniest of local businesses accessible. But Teddle, and other sharing economy businesses like it in the UK, are finding that their grand vision of a virtual labour market in which micro-entrepreneurs can strike a series of small deals is turning out to be depressingly akin to running a temping agency. The London-based start-up was forced to make the first big shift in its business model when it found that searches for just one service – cleaning – outnumbered all others by a four to one ratio." Teddle is a previous name of Helpling. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Helpling to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 


 * Keep per Cunard's multiple reliable sources. Pam  D  11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment source 1 and source 2 are  the same. The author published it in two formats, as a journal article and as a report.  It'slike saying an author published multiple books if they published the ame book under several different titles.  ANdin any case, this firm is only one of the 5 discussed, and they arethere as examples, not necessarily the most important.  DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2019 (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.
 * Notability says: "'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 does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It is clear that the journal article and the report provide significant coverage about Helpling. The two journal article and the report contain different material about the company so I consider them to be sufficiently different to be separate sources. There is no requirement for Helpling to be considered "the most important" of the five examples discussed. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional or trivial coverage and content. Coverage also based on PR campaigns. Interviews with the founder is promotional, not second or third party independent coverage. Fails CORPDEPTH, GNG, and WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:NOTPROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, most of the coverage is PR. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: To address the concerns about the sources being promotional coverage about Helpling, I searched for sources that provided negative coverage and critical analysis about Helpling. Helpling, which is based in the United Kingdom, has a heavy presence in Germany, so I focused on German-language sources:<ol> <li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> </ol>

<ol> <li> From Google Translate: "HELPING: Cheap, but with shortcomings ... Cancellation. Up to 48 hours before the appointment free of charge, until 24 hours before 10 euros fee, then: Costs for one hour cleaning. Simple process, good customer service, travel included, appointment reminder by SMS, value for money good. No correction guarantee in case of dissatisfaction, cleaning staff came and went too early, surprisingly hardly had knowledge of German, cleaning equipment had to be provided, pets were not taken into account, cleaning performance was only satisfactory" From Google Translate: "Language barrier. It also came as a surprise that our helpling was barely German and we had to quickly translate our carefully prepared checklist for cleaning into English - probably for those who then had vocabulary such as 'decalcifier' and 'faucet' on it. The other providers sent at least one German-speaking cleaning force."</li> <li> This is a podcast on the show Hielscher or Haase with two people: moderator Marlis Schaum and Sandra Pfister from Deutschlandfunk Nova's business department. From a Google Translate summary of the episode: "Cleaning aid per app: This is possible for some time on many online portals. Helpling is currently expanding in Germany, with a cleaning hour costing customers 12.90 euros. And you can also deduct from the tax. Good: The cleaning staff do not have to work black. That sounds good. However, the Stiftung Warentest has its doubts as to whether the Helpling bill can really be deducted from the tax. The reason: If you let clean, does not transfer the cleaning power directly, but to the online portal Helpling. A step that is not provided for in the Income Tax Act, says Sandra Pfister from our business office. Customers have to wait and see if they really get their money back at the next tax return. Despite this uncertainty - the business of Helpling and similar providers is running. Customers in Germany can now choose between several providers. Behind Helpling is Rocket Internet, a company of the Samwer brothers, which, among other things, brought the clothes sender Zalando on the stock exchange. 'Cleaning ladies who work at Helpling have no fixed income, no protection against dismissal, no paid leave.' Sandra Pfister from the economics department."</li> <li> From Google Translate: "Helpling has supplanted the competition Of the start-ups, who started with much verve, there are only a few left, and the market has consolidated. After the 'The Winner takes it all' rule in the platform industry, the company Helpling, which was founded by Rocket Internet, gradually took over competitors such as clean agents or family helpers and thus became the leading provider of private-sector mediation. Competitor Book a Tiger specialized more and more in commercial customers. The US company Homejoy retired from Germany. But also the way from Helpling was not free from difficulties. In 2015, the company had to lay off a fifth of its employees, Rocket Internet then corrected the company's value by over twelve million down. As a result, the start-up softened its business model and opened its platform for other household-related services such as furniture construction or clearing out. With private cleaning alone, there seems to be no business to do. Nevertheless, Helpling, which is also active in Singapore, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, today sends several orders a day in Berlin alone in Berlin alone. The cleaning staff are self-employed and set their own prices. However, you have to calculate that Helpling will keep a commission when making a booking. For a one-time cleaning, 32 percent of the hourly rate is charged, with regular cleaning 25 percent including VAT."</li> <li> From Google Translate: "In contrast, those who order a 'helpling' do not necessarily get what many people imagine under a classic cleaning aid in Berlin: it is often young students or life artists from countries such as Australia, France, Portugal, Spain or the USA who are necessarily in Berlin want to live and stay afloat with side jobs. Most do not speak German. Helpling has meanwhile removed the word 'professional' from the website - it now guarantees a 'high-quality' cleaning, which is to be ensured through a rating system, among other things. ... In the test of the 'world' the quality of the cleaning work of the 'Helplinge' was mostly good - but occasionally they were not punctual. It also turned out to be difficult to set up a 'wish helpling' - it always came back somebody else. The customer must then be at home, go through an introduction again and again and can not simply hand over his key. ... Conclusion: The cleaning gantries are better than illicit work - but you should not expect the professionalism of a cleaning company from the low-cost suppliers. Anyone ordering a helpling in Berlin must also be prepared to communicate in English only."</li> <li> From Google Translate: "The fact that Helpling has been doing everything for years to avoid being understood as an employer is well known. For some, Franke is a posterboy of the privileged neo-liberals, for others a mastermind who fights the black market and advocates more self-determination for solo self-employed in the low paid sector. ... But how is it going to work that this cohesion of customer and service provider continues to take place via the Helpling app? It remains to be asked why both should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling. ... Whether this security can outweigh the safety in terms of dismissal and occupational safety as well as pension and health insurance, the solo self-employed must decide for themselves." The article includes a right of reply from Helpling's co-founder.</li> </ol>

Summary of sources Wiebke Hugen wrote in the Germany business magazine Guter Rat in a review of Helpling, "No correction guarantee in case of dissatisfaction, cleaning staff came and went too early, surprisingly hardly had knowledge of German, cleaning equipment had to be provided, pets were not taken into account, cleaning performance was only satisfactory". Sandra Pfister, who works in public broadcasting station Deutschlandfunk Nova's economics department, said in the Hielscher or Haase radio program, "Cleaning ladies who work at Helpling have no fixed income, no protection against dismissal, no paid leave" and noted that there was significant uncertainty over whether Helpling customers could get a tax return from the Helpling bill based on the Income Tax Act. Thorsten Mumme wrote in Der Tagesspiegel, a German daily newspaper, that "Helpling was not free from difficulties" in that it had to lay off 20% of its employees in 2015 and its investor Rocket Internet reduced its value by more than 12 million. The article provides further analysis by saying the company could not do further business with only private cleaning, so it began to do other household services including making furniture and moving people's belongings. Stephan Dörner wrote in the national German newspaper Die Welt that "you should not expect the professionalism of a cleaning company from the low-cost suppliers. Anyone ordering a helpling in Berlin must also be prepared to communicate in English only." Katharina White in Berliner Morgenpost provides critical analysis of the company, writing, "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling." Cunard (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC) </li></ul> <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. Relisting comment: Given additional sources provided, it's possible a relist provides an opportunity for a keep consensus to emerge rather than the current no consensus. As such I believe this qualifies for a third relist per WP:RELIST.
 * Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content]. Mentions-in-passing or [[churnalism don't cut it - just shows there's a working marketing dept at the company. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete completely WP:PROMO. A small wave of PR-generated media attention focussed in London five years ago, almost exclusively for the period February-June 2014. A company offering out-sourced precarious work cleaning services at barely minimum wages (not even London living wage)....if this were a WP:DIRECTORY, sure ... but it's an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA... at very best it could be cited as an example on gig economy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not true that this is "A small wave of PR-generated media attention focussed in London five years ago, almost exclusively for the period February-June 2014." The five sources I provided at 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC) were published by newspapers and magazines based in Germany in 2015, 2015, 2018, 2018, and 2019, which is over a span of multiple years. These sources are about Helpling and provide negative coverage and critical analysis of Helpling. The peer-reviewed academic journal article Policy & Internet was published in 2019 and provides three paragraphs of coverage about Helpling. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Five pieces in a period of four years cannot constitute significant coverage. In terms of the content, the German-language sources are either consumer-review, road tests of multiple cleaning service companies or about the unregulated, precarious nature of work in the gig economy. All but one (and that one, the Berliner Morgenpost is regurgitating material from the companý's press kit) refer to Helpling as one example among many - the articles cited only provide notability for issues related to the gig economy (ie web-based provision of unskilled labour, lack of tax, failure of labour market regulation etc), not Helpling per se. All of this is trivial coverage of Helpling. The Policy & Internet is one single, peer-reviewed 28 page article, which only discusses Helpling directly in three paragraphs (so about 1.5% of the entire article) - this alone cannot indicate ongoing notability. Helpling is used as a case amongst many - again reinforcing the point that the company is an example of a wider phenomenon, but not notable by itself.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability says: "'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 does not need to be the main topic of the source material." All of the sources I provided "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". For two articles that are only about Helpling and contain no information about any other company, see this article from Deutschlandfunk Nova and this article from Berliner Morgenpost. The Berliner Morgenpost article is not "regurgitating material from the companý's press kit". It includes quotes from an interview with the company's founder but it also has critical analysis of the company. It says "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling." It includes other critical analysis such as "For some, Franke [founder of Helpling" is a posterboy of the privileged neo-liberals, for others a mastermind who fights the black market and advocates more self-determination for solo self-employed in the low paid sector." The article further notes that the cleaning service is cheap but not everything goes to the cleaner who has several fees they must pay Helpling.  To say categorically that "Five pieces in a period of four years cannot constitute significant coverage" has no basis in the notability guideline.  Cunard (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the topic was the gig economy, then yes, the majority of the pieces cited would lend support for notability. The extent of coverage over periods of time is a component in assessing notability, see WP:SUSTAINED: "New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION."--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TThe WP:SUSTAINED guideline refers to "New companies and future events". Helpling was founded in 2012. It is no longer a "new company". Helpling received significant coverage in 2015, 2015, 2018, 2018, and 2019. This is between three and seven years after its founding. That Helpling is not a "new company" and that it received significant coverage over a span of five years means it passes WP:SUSTAINED. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The following stands out: Helpling is a company that comes into existence in 2015 following the acquisition of other companies. The majority of material presented as WP:RS on the company are churnalism. There is no newspaper of record coverage of Helpling (although there is one item of its earlier incarnation). What material does not fall into those categories discusses Helpling with other companies in the context of the gig economy. There is nothing here to indicate why this company is actually notable.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2019 (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.