Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LawnStarter (2nd nomination)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

LawnStarter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep wrote at Articles for deletion/LawnStarter: The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , ,.


 * Note that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines. North America1000 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources found by clearly demonstrate that LawnStarter passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 
 * Delete as still questionable for WP:CORP, the Business Journals have been known for being hinted promotional for companies and none of the other listed websites are solidly satisfying anyway, overall this is still questionable for better.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Newspapers and publications published by American City Business Journals are reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Notable company. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. See also WP:NEXIST. North America1000 10:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * TechCrunch
 * The Huffington Post
 * The Tennessean
 * San Diego Union-Tribune
 * San Antonio Current
 * Austin Business Journal
 * Austin Business Journal
 * Austin Business Journal
 * Miami Herald
 * Fox 7 News
 * The Business Journals are heavily used for starting companies and this is clearly the case with the coverage only being expected for a starting company, there's nothing to suggest there's established solidity yet and therefore should not be kept until there's better available. SwisterTwister   talk  07:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the other sources? North America1000 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article as it stands reads like an advert and lacks notability.Star Islington (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How does the article read like an advertisement? It contains no promotional language, does not extol the benefits or greatness of the company, etc. It is entirely neutrally worded and provides an general overview of the company. North America1000 18:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's just one example: "The company's online and mobile applications enable the booking and paying for of lawn care, with access to services and payments on-the-go." That's not "entirely neutral," it's at best 2/3 PR fluff.  "The company offers online and mobile applications" is at most all that's necessary for an encyclopedia—and, frankly, even that is superfluous; so what, in terms of the history and actual encyclopedic notability of the company?  "[W]ith access to services and payments 'on the go'" is fluff marketing content whether one realizes/wants to admit it or not; it's entirely unnecessary except to try to convince the reader that the company provides particularly helpful customer service, which is not what Wikipedia is for.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed "with access to services and payments on-the-go". The "enable the booking and paying for of lawn care" is about what customers LawnStarter focuses on; I do not consider that part promotional. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copy editing the article; this is often all that is necessary, rather than blanket deletion of an entire article. North America1000 16:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This account was created on 8 June 2016, the same day this vote was made. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Local business journals are merely places to publish press releases; OnNo matter how many such press releases there are, it still doesn't establish notability. The other sources are merely about start up funding. Current practice is that such sources do not establish notability, because they ar essentially indiscriminate-they cover any company that gets money and wants to announce it. Furthermore, the article is so highly promotional that it could be deleted or that alone.  Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent   reason for deletion, and the sooner we make that standard practice without having to argue each one of the hundred thousand that inundate us every year, the easier it will be to remove advertisements.  Once we become a vehicle for advertisements, we're useless as an encyclopedia   DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment is inaccurate. LawnStarter is based in Austin, Texas. This article from the major metropolitan newspaper The San Diego Union-Tribune is not about startup funding. It compares and contrasts Austin-based LawnStarter with San Diego-based Lawn Love. Example: "Both companies promise to simplify and speed up the sometimes-arduous task of ordering professional lawn care. Their solutions include tools that generate quick online or mobile quotes, provide service update notifications to customers, encourage reviews, and help route around operational challenges such as traffic or weather. Both also give their lawn-care technicians software to manage customers, scheduling and accounting." The article further notes: "LawnStarter, meanwhile, launched in Austin in June of last year while going through the Techstars startup incubator. The company takes an undisclosed cut of fees, and offers its version of on-demand landscaping in Orlando, Washington D.C. and several cities across Maryland, Texas and Virginia. LawnStarter has raised a total of $7.25 million in funding, most recently closing $6 million to expand to more markets. San Diego is next on deck. The upcoming battle between Lawn Love and LawnStarter may be worth watching, particularly if it helps consumers." Likewise, this article from the major newspaper The Tennessean provides significant coverage about the subject: Furthermore, the article is not promotional. It merely contains basic information about the company. If you object to any of the content in the article, please explain and I'll fix it. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the San Diego story is a local story--it's a local story about a local company, that mentions its competitors.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not merely "mention" its competitor LawnStarter. It discusses LawnStarter in substantial detail. See the material I quoted above, for example. From Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There is no support in the notability guidelines that a regional newspaper like The San Diego Union-Tribune cannot be used to establish notability for a non-local company like LawnStarter if there is a local connection (in this case the competition between Austin-based LawnStarter and San Diego-based Lawn Love. The San Diego article allows LawnStarter to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which says (my bolding), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."  Cunard (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I stated in the last AfD discussion "that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines", but some appear to ignore this and just read the article headlines, apparently without reading the actual content. So it goes, I suppose. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America1000 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per references above.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment However, if the above references and content is good enough to defend the article against deletion, then it must be good enough to include in the article. Conversely, if it is not good enough for the article it is not good enough to defend it against deletion.  I suggest that the relevant contributor/s above add the referenced content to the article.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the articles cited above are all announcements (press releases) and are not independent reporting of the subject. Announcing an influx of $6 million or even $10 million from investors is not notable. Companies, Corporations, and Startups do this everyday - it is routine. Follow the Silicon Valley companies and see how much funding they recieved in which round last week, yesterday, and today. Lawnstarter app in the app store is not reliable sourcing either (as in the refs). This article is a merely way of using Wikipedia for a promotional platform ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment that coverage in the San Diego Tribune is so trivial. How is comparing this product with that product notable? It is trivial advertising and at best it is no par with an advice column - this does not speak for notability. In dealing with the thousands of articles that are using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, this issue wonderfully expressed in this Signpost article.
 * Comment the article in the San Diego Tribune reads like a press release. It seems as if both founders or presidents (or whatever) got together and issued a press release. I don't know, but this article is lifted from some sort of press release and appears to have been copied verbatim.


 * Anyway, this is all venture capital investor speak, complete with mentioning "netting a $6-million cash infusion from backers" (ooh-wowee!), "rake in $74.9 billion in revenue in the U.S. this year" (wowee-so impressive!) ,   "Lawn Love went through Silicon Valley's esteemed Y Combinator startup accelerator program" (what? - what is that? - who knows but it sounds impressive - more investor speak so you don't have to know - just be impressed!!) , "raised $1.9 million in seed funding" (that's not that much is it? I mean compared to Unicorns? more venture investor speak) ,  " company...takes home between 10 percent and 15 percent of service fees" (this is sure important to know!) ... and so on. This is all aimed at investors, this is not journalistic or editorial integrity per WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the San Diego Union-Tribune article, why on earth would the company write and release a supposed "press release" that includes a comparison of its competitor, Lawn Love, and using the tone within the article? This would make no sense as a press release. Then, you're implying that the authors of this supposed "press release" then somehow convinced the news source's author to publish it under their name, and that the editors of the newspaper somehow went along with all of this. Where's the proof? You're asserting that "this article is lifted from some sort of press release and appears to have been copied verbatim", but have provided no proof of such claim. Note that in this Google search for the title of the article, links to only two articles are there, both in the Sun Times network. Additional links such as [www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=6879789] and [article.wn.com/view/.../tech_startups_target_lawn_care_market_startups_target_lawn] are essentially mirrors, links to and unauthorized copies of the article. Your theory also implies that the staff writer of the article, Jennifer Van Grove, just added her name atop the supposed "press release". This is bit insulting to the journalistic integrity of the staff writer and the source itself. Could you provide any actual proof of this being a press release, or is only a proof by assertion argument going to be stated here? Sorry, but I think your analysis of this source is wholly incorrect. North America1000 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is a press release aimed at investors. After reading these awhile it easy to tell. Also, it is common practice for companies to send press releases to beleaguered press rooms, and they are beleaguered all over the country - with much less resources than 15 years ago. It is just as easy to reproduce a pres release or similar type announcement as not. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This source - San Antonio - there is no indication of noteworthiness. It is just announcing the arrival of LawnStarter - there is no indication of significant impact. Also, this company is not doing anything different from thousands of other companies that arrive in a city near you. Uber is notable, it has caused shifts in societies and cultures, and has had to fight to do so. Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Oracle Corp - producer of Java software - have all caused shifts in societies and cultures all over the globe. This company has not done so - especially with its reliance on a few apps (which look like small icons to consumers), --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather - I say it like this - To me, it seems as though the San Diego Tribune piece reads like a press release.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. The San Diego Union-Tribune article does not read as a press release to me; it reads as an objective news article, which it is. Be sure to read page 2 of the article, if you have not already done so. You state about it, "Yeah, it is a press release aimed at investors", but where's the proof other than subjective opinion and argument by assertion? Furthermore, I have provided evidence above that it is indeed not a "press release", but rather, is an actual news article. North America1000 21:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - I hope the following helps:
 * Another editor in another AfD, describing press releases, worte this: "They are press releases because they merely announce the release of a product, feature people from the company discussing the merits of the product, and at least one provides company contact information to learn more. Clearly a release put out by they company that was simply republished; it is not an independent reliable source. Also see [[WP:ORGIND". Here is the diif  and here is the AfD:.
 * Another editor in another AfD, describing press releases, worte this: "They are press releases because they merely announce the release of a product, feature people from the company discussing the merits of the product, and at least one provides company contact information to learn more. Clearly a release put out by they company that was simply republished; it is not an independent reliable source. Also see [[WP:ORGIND". Here is the diif  and here is the AfD:.


 * For a little background I was already somewhat aware of this. In any case, I added the following (here is the diff )
 * " Interestingly enough, QuestionPro has published online a common strategy now used by thousands and thousands of businesses large and small: Five Tips for Getting Your Press Release Published (external link provided). And, right up front it comments on the problem in our modern day news departments across the country - they are understaffed. Then it touts the "five step" process for taking the load off shrinking news organizations (or in other words, exploiting the harried staff).


 * To get an idea of the changes taking place in the media industry, see this article: PR Industry Fills Vacuum Left by Shrinking Newsrooms. 


 * As an aside, it is not only staff size that is shrinking; available resources from the parent media corporation for their respective news organizations are also shrinking. From Pew Research's Excellence in Journalism Project: "'Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007'" .And signing for now (at this time)  ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't need to quote myself I suppose. Anyway, read DGGs Ivote above - he is talking about press releases as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm striking one of my comments above - I apologize if I came across as flippant. I'm going to take a break from this for awhile. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all about a different article and source relative to that article, but does not confer to this article and the San Diego Union-Tribune article. You still have provided no evidence that this is a press release. It's unlikely that such evidence exists, because it's a valid news article. Note the evidence I presented above that supports my statements. It comes across that you feel that any news coverage about a company in news sources is somehow automatically a press release, but this is not the case here. Also note that has also refuted the notion of the sources being "press releases" above in this discussion. North America1000 22:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you are correct about the San Diego Tribune source. When I saw the repeats in the mirror sites and some of the phrases in the article itself - it seems I misinterpreted the whole thing. Apologies to you. I've probably been doing too many AfD's lately. Also, it seems this company is garnering a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism). I don't see why they have to have titles like "Such and Such Company pulls down $6 million in funding". It is totally off-putting. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Question What is the issue with press releases ?   Provided the press release is not on the primary source's site and not on a mirror site and not paid advertorial content ?   What I mean is:  If an entity issues a press release, and that press release is used either as just source material by the secondary source, or copied in part by the secondary source, or copied in full verbatim by the secondary source, then that secondary source has endorsed the content, just the same as if one of its own reporters had researched content from scratch.   How do we objectively judge otherwise ?  Aoziwe (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's analysis of The San Diego Union-Tribune as not being a press release. It is improbable that the marketing teams of LawnStarter and its competitor Lawn Love would collaborate on a newspaper article written by a The San Diego Union-Tribune journalist. Impugning the journalistic integrity of The San Diego Union-Tribune writer Jennifer Van Grove should not be done without concrete evidence. That a regional San Diego, California, newspaper has provided substantial coverage of an Austin, Texas, company strongly establishes notability under Notability (organizations and companies), which says (my bolding), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Steve Quinn, who has supported deletion, wrote above: "Also, it seems this company is garnering a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism). I don't see why they have to have titles like 'Such and Such Company pulls down $6 million in funding'. It is totally off-putting." I agree that the titles might be better phrased. But that the company has "garner[ed] a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism)" means it meets Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing this up. First, pertaining to my previous edits at this AfD, I want to say I got carried away and may have even lost objectivity. It seems this can happen to the best of editors at times for various reasons.


 * Anyway, back to your comment and question. I think we can only objectively judge mostly by the reliability that we count on for a given source. For example, The Huffington Post, The San Deigo Tribune, The Tennessean, and the Miami Herald seem to be known for being reliable sources, due to their editorial integrity.


 * So, essentially, if a given reliable source has endorsed the content it published then that is what is so - whether or not it is partially sourced from a press release (or press releases). These are sources of information, and I have to believe that whatever report is derived from these, then they have been fact checked before publication - due to editorial integrity. Now I will veer away from your above comment to make my own point about something. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I seem to be noticing that all of the news stories in the above noted sources are publicizing only Lawn Starter's virtues There is no other side to this story (or these stories). Yes, perhaps, challenges it faces are mentioned. However, the downside, whatever it is, is not presented.


 * In contrast, regular news stories such as about a disaster or human tragedy and so on, cover more than one point of view (or multiple views) to produce a balanced story. In fact, the news media have been criticized (in the press) for its lack of depth sometimes - because journalists have been trained in this way ,i.e, to get all sides of a story before producing a story for publication.


 * Anyway, the point is, I am wondering if we shouldn't question the value of these sources due to their lack of balance. Also, because it seems clear the only sourcing is from this company and what they have to say. Of course, in the "Tribune" story there is a competitor, but again there is no downside presented for either company. Also, the other CEO is quoted as a source. In other words, no other views are taken into account in any of these sources.


 * For example, (and only for example) what do the already established lawn care company CEOs, spokesman, or representatives, have to say about Lawn Care Lawn Starter eroding their business or acquiring regular clients they regularly service? These views, for example, or any other views are not represented.


 * I'm just giving examples of how it might be that the sources listed above are not reporting in a way that counts toward being considered notable. It is possible that having an article for Lawn Care Lawn Starter is WP:TOOSOON at this particular time. If this is he case, then it may actually become notable later, in a manner similar to Uber. Lawn Starter is not doing that just yet because it is a new company - and maybe it needs more time to establish a notable track record. Just putting this out there. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Cunnard it seems to be garnering press in mostly in tech sections of publications, or tech publications, or trade publications. It doesn't appear to be the same as regular news reporting--Steve Quinn (talk)
 * What you;re saying is that all these sources are essentially press releases.The criterion you use is a good way to tell. About 8 years ago I would have argued that major newspapers never publish press releases, but experience here has shown me otherwise.    DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very much what I am saying - the sources are essentially announcements, or another form of press release written by a staff member (of the newspaper) - publishing only perceived admiral qualities. This does not seem like good journalism to me. This happens because overburdened news organizations are now lacking those tremendous resources and large staffs that were available 15 years ago - and they have evolved to using press releases to generate news - as is happening here.


 * Also, Uber and Lyft have earned their place on Wikipedia by generating reams and reams of real press coverage in the national and international news. They did this by challenging many areas of our modern societies in countries across the globe, forcing us to take stock about where we stand about sending large segments of transportation companies' personnel to the unemployment line, as well as, how will each country regulate this new thing or suspend regulation, including does their vetting process equate to safety for all passengers, and so on. They have been causing cultural shifts - as did Microsoft, Google, and Apple inc before them.


 * Nowadays the apps that Uber and Lyft pioneered are commonplace, finding function in all kinds of businesses. Now the apps are just business as usual as unknown numbers of entrepreneurs rush to adapt this type of app to various and assorted businesses in the service sector. Garnering $1 million or $6 million in a certain round of funding does not establish a track record of notability. This happens with businesses everyday. Just check out any region and sector that has startups or companies that need investment. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. It's like self--published books, a very few become notable. Our reasonable and well - established presumption at WP  is that they are not going to be, unless there becomes very good evidence.  Now we need to convince the other people in WP to follow this approach also for new companies--especially new internet companies.   At this pt, those who go only by press "coverage" would have our standards for these be lower than for athletes and bands, where we have at least   established the need for a certain degree of actual success, not just press coverage for trying.   DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Not seeing quite enough non-routine, non-press release, non-local, non-trivial coverage (i.e. not enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is what I also see - not enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, mostly because most all of the sources are saying pretty much the same thing - with perhaps the only difference between some is geographical locale. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - maybe just WP:TOOSOON. Startups are problematic; there's too much hype to get name recognition for a new business, and the general news cycle tends to do that regularly.  Speaking of hype, why wasn't this speedied as WP:PROMO for COI and SPA given that the article creator is User:Lawnstarter.jake?  That's a huge red flag.  Additionally, everybody's got an app; that's not a significant marker of anything these days, and neither of the app store links are RS - we all know there's no bar to getting an app there as long as it works.  The venture capital material is irrelevant as well; startups run on venture capital.  There's also no way significant coverage is met by "50 startups to watch" unless it's a 600-page book.  I also lean towards not using a business journal for notability; they're there for a promotional purpose whether it's apparent or not.  There's nothing here that gets us out of WP:ENN.  Steve Quinn is correct that notable companies tend to generate coverage outside of a company history or a management profile, and it takes time to do that. MSJapan (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

SiliconHills stuff is really PR "we're in this market"-type stuff.


 * Delete. Promotional COI article created by . The company is just a start-up, and the coverage is either strictly local or only about their financing to start the company. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2016 (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.