Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabbage


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Kabbage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looking at the history tab I see a large number of edits by what appear to be connected and WP:COI contributors. There has been no declaration of COI anywhere. Much of the referencing is PR, press releases and regurgitated press releases. I suspect this to be part of a paid editing promotional campaign, and am nominating it for deletion as a blatant advert. I have not checked all the references, but I smell WP:BOMBARD Fiddle   Faddle  16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was the user that attempted to clean up the page from previous COI editors. One user in particular, "KabbageKate", seemed very likely to be directly related to the subject. The page was riddled with WP:NPOV issues that I tried to address. The page has been live for over four years, with dozens of editors contributing to the page. The proper route would be to improve the page rather than flat-out deleting it, as it so clearly passes WP:Notability with trusted independent sources such as The Washington Post, Forbes, New York Times, USA Today, and Bloomberg, see WP:SIGCOV and WP:NRV. As it relates to the press releases, it appears that there are only three out of over 45 sources total, which passes WP:SPIP. This is something that can easily be corrected, rather than resorting to deleting the page. In regards to WP:BOMBARD, sources have been added by a variety of editors, including myself, and I don't think it applies here; there has been WP:SIGCOV of this subject. Walton2413 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe delete for now at least as so a better article can be made as the current version is not exactly entirely acceptable. Pinging past users, and  and also  who may be interested to comment.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. andstart over. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but 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  DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister DGG We already have a base for the article. What's the point of deleting it and starting over if we can just improve the existing article? I'd argue it's not at all borderline notability. I identified the promotional issues the same as you. and attempted to clean up the page a couple months back. I think it has improved and become more factual, but if it needs work why don't we collaborate to improve it, rather than just outright deleting it? It's worth noting it is a company page - and with most company pages, it's essentially an "About" page (this is an encyclopedia) which is going to be inherently promotional in some respects as its obviously going to describe the company and what it does. Nobody in here has identified which elements of the page are promotional, what shouldn't exist, or what could be improved. Deleting and starting over puts use nowhere - as most of the same content would likely be included a second time around. Let's identify what information is too promotional, and improve/remove it. Walton2413 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for doing this is that it is the only way we can try to prevent promotional coi editing. Removing the article is the only effective sanction. (I used to feel just as you on such maters, but the deluge of promotionalism has convinced me of the need to do something about it. I would not oppose moving to draft space, and restoring after a considerable time--I will now sometimes do that.  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG What would stop promotional COI editing from happening on a new page? Editors like that would have the same abilities on a new article as on the existing page. But again, the bulk of the problem appeared to happen from the "KabbageKate" account which hasn't been active in quite some time. Deleting the page wipes out contributions from editors who have been working to improve the page in good faith. Walton2413 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - There is enough usable content and references to work with to warrant editing the existing article.Tcom876 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and copy edit – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH (e.g., , , , , etc.), and the article is not comprised solely of advertising. The article has a neutral tone, and much of it simply presents facts, company achievements and milestones. Many other types of articles have such content, such as charting statistics and music recording sales certification for albums, awards awarded to artists, companies, actors, filmmakers, etc. Perhaps such content in the article should be consolidated into an abridged "Awards and achievements" section in it, or something to that effect. Many of the sources used in the article are not press releases. This is quite salvageable, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 11:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is substantially/wholly marketing copy. We have a lengthy section on "Product", for instance, which doesn't mention Kabbage's main product: easily obtainable 80% APR loans. The company is definitely notable, though. Mxheil (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:13, 14 November 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.