Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolabtree


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolabtree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have created for promotional purposes. Couldn't get much information from Google. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article read like it's an advertisement and cites primary sources. Analog Horror, ( Speak ) 21:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP I did a Google News search and found a few more sources such as nature.com and Forbes. I have added the nature.com source. I do not agree with prior editor that it reads like an advertisement. It is very precisely written as to what they do and also it would seem to justify notability not only with news sources, but also because it is a unique service. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Response The source you added from Nature.com is an interview with the founder - fails WP:ORGIND  HighKing++ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I beg to differ here, this is not self promotional and neither does it read like an advertisement. This article is informative and factual. I've added some additional sources like Machine Design...etc, the article is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements.2402:3A80:671:2DBE:42C0:DB8A:42CE:ED9B (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: 2402:3A80:671:2DBE:42C0:DB8A:42CE:ED9B (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
 * Response The reference you added from manufacturingchemist is based on a company announcement therefore is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from machinedesign is based on an infographic released by the company supported by quotations from their CEO. It has no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from entrepreneur.com is a listing and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - Easily passes WP:GNG. Several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage in article (entrepreneur.com, nature.com., manufacturingchemist.com) More sources are available to expand article.  CBS 527 Talk 06:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)  *Normally I use the more comprehensive requirements of [WP:NCORP]] when evaluating the notability of a company but occasionally there are exceptions where an article may not meet a subject-specific guideline. In some of those cases WP:GNG may apply. Initially, IMO, this company met GNG based on other available online sources such as Forbes and Online Recruiting. After re-reading some of these sources, certain phrase such as  "online platform for freelance scientists" and "freelancers, many with PhDs" appears in number of them indicating the source may have come from a press release.  I find the sourcing is not as strong as I originally thought thus I'm changing my !vote.   CBS 527 Talk 04:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Response The criteria is not merely "reliable, independent sources with significant coverage" and the examples you have pointed to are good examples of why that is so. The references must also contain "Independent Content" - that is, not rely on announcements/interviews/PR from the company whereas the examples you point to fail this.  HighKing++ 14:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" or "reliable sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems notable to me. The topic being discussed in multiple secondary reliable sources and hence passes WP:GNG. Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: Tushar.ghone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
 * Response It is not enough that the topic is "discussed" in multiple "secondary reliable sources". The content of those references must also meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you point to any reference you believe meets the criteria?  HighKing++ 14:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be unfair to discuss each individual article here. The topic as a whole, looks notable and passes the notability test. the article needs improvement, not deletion.Tushar.ghone (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh? That's the whole point of AfD! We don't look at the "topic as a whole", we look to see if it meets out policies/guidelines. You say it "passes the notability test" but you can't point to even one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability???  HighKing</b>++ 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, per HighKing. The sourcing is flat-out not good. As cited in the article at present:
 * 1) Manufacturing Chemist - no byline (press release?), specific-audience online trade publication
 * 2) Machine Design - specific-audience online trade publication, article mostly about the industry in general and not Kolabtree
 * 3) Onrec 1 and Onrec 2 - byline is for a "publisher at Onrec" which suggests to me this is a press release being republished. In any case, another specific-audience online trade publication.
 * 4) AIM Group - another specific-audience online trade publication.
 * 5) Nature - Nature is generally a good source but this fails WP:ORGIND as it's simply the founder describing the company with no original content.
 * 6) AIthority - another specific-audience online trade publication.
 * 7) Manufacturing Tomorrow - this is not about Kolabtree, it's by a Kolabtree freelancer, which means squat for the notability of the company.
 * 8) Personnel Today - another specific-audience online trade publication.
 * 9) Yale Postdoctoral Association - this is a classified ad, even if it is wearing a nice suit because it graduated from Yale.
 * 10) Entrepreneur - crap listicle with zero in-depth coverage
 * 11) Superb Crew - interview with marketing director of Kolabtree, zero independent content.
 * It's total crap. There's no sourcing in anything approaching a wide-audience publication. Complete failure of WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This AfD is obviously being canvassed off-wiki - it beggars belief that this new/infrequent editors just so happened to arrive and all argue for keep. I hope the closer weighs these arguments accordingly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - article fails to meet WP:NCORP due to a lack of independent, in-depth coverage surrounding it. As seen with Highking and Chaos' analysis of the article's sources, many - on close inspection - do not posses the needed depth or intellectually independence to meet NCORP; as always, it is the quality of coverage, not the number of sources, that determine's a topic's encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Agree, the sourcing is not that great but it's content is verifiable through third party sources...the article does not contain any promotional material and thoroughly cited. Kolabtree is one of very companies in the UK that I know of that offers freelance scientists scientists from the likes of NASA, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Cambridge. I agree with the previous editor, it's a unique service that being offered by a very few providers in the UK and worth being on Wikipedia.There are sources available to verify article's content. If a topic does not meet certain criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful. I would not delet it but rather leave it with notifications, the topic may get coverage in future and can be improved with a slight effort. Faizal batliwala (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note — Faizal batliwala (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

<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: Looks like it's getting close to a consensus or already, to be careful I relist to allow for more time and more people joining

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26.  —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I  <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:Pretty well-known company and one of the biggest platforms for freelance scientists and researchers in UK. There are a number of sources available online that discuss the company in-depth including manufacturingchemist, nature.com. I think the topic has sufficiently gained significant coverage and deserves a space in the Wikipedia.Sunita.william (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * — Sunita.wiliam (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I have made sifgnificant changes to the page including edits that removed promotional jargon and unreliable sources, also added a few more sources. The article substantially changed since the AFD opened and looks better now.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD discussions determine - via looking at the quality of all potential sources - the notability of a topic, not the quality of an article. Cleanup is a good thing, but is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned; see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, the article has significantly improved since the discussion opened. Look at the sources, there could be no sources better than these and discuss the subject in-depth and meets the requirements. Tushar.ghone (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Response I agree that some of the more gushing parts of the original article have been trimmed but you seem to miss the entire point of requiring references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. This is a *different* standard that references that may be used to support citations and facts within the article. Since this AfD, the following sources were added:
 * Manufacturing Chemist which is entirely based on [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/over-10-000-scientists-are-now-registered-on-freelance-platform-kolabtree-1028599077 this Business Insider PRWire announcement and the article is also the same as this from OnlineMarketPlaces and this from CleanRoomTechnology. It is PR and fails WP:ORGIND. The other reference added on the same subject, this from Personnel Today, fails for the exact same reasons (the URL even shows it is PR as it is in the PR section of the website).
 * This from Nature.com is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and contains no Independent Content (i.e. there is zero original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.) and therefore also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from AI Powered Healthcare is an article discussing an infographic *released by the company*! There are no details provided about the company (fails WP:CORPDEPTH), it is not significant coverage (fails WP:SIGCOV) and it relies extensively on quotations provided by the CEO with no Independent Content (fails WP:ORGIND). Also, the next reference from Machine Design is essentially a copy of tha one in AI Powered Healthcare, contains the same quotations from the CEO and fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability for the same reasons.
 * So in summary, not a single reference added to the article (nor any I have been able to find) are anything more than company announcements and PR or article drummed up by company publications. Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate spam nor the Yellow Pages. If you think this topic is notable and that sources exist which meet the criteria (as per WP:NCORP) then please post links here. The minimum number is two for a topic to meet the requirements of notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per PMC. The sources are not strong enough to support the article, and it also does not have any notability which fails it via WP:ORGSIG. Swordman97  talk to me  01:00, 3 April 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.