Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PolicyGenius


 * 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. Disregarding the person associated with the company, there's only one, and "weak", keep opinion here.  Sandstein  05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

PolicyGenius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references provided do not substantiate that the business is notable Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The content of the article would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

Blatant conflict of interest (the author is self-admittedly employed by this organization as a media marketer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have properly completed steps 2 and 3 of the AfD process on behalf of the nominator. On the merits of the nomination I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Obvious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues. However, those warrant clean-up rather than deletion as long as the subject of the article meets the notability threshold. Neutral regarding deletion, for now. Paisarepa (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: What have you found notable that keeps you neutral? Eliminate the WP:COI and WP:NPV and there's nothing left. No notability in the content, and every reference leads to a sponsored page. You can find dozens of common, similar businesses that sell insurance online. If like PolicyGenius, they sell something, have founders, and received investments, then they are surely missing out on Google page reputation by not having a Wikipedia article about them that links back to their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The company was profiled by Forbes, for one example of significant coverage by a reliable, independent secondary source. Additionally, the company was the primary focus of the articles by Lifehacker, Investopedia, and Venturebeat. The notability threshold is that the company must have been "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It appears to me that the references support its notability so I am leaning towards keep. How are you determining that the references are sponsored pages? I'm not seeing indications that they are native advertising, but I could be missing something. Paisarepa (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete An analysis of the references (some also mentioned by above) in the article as follows:
 * Venturebeat article specifically fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders and contains no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and/or fact checking.
 * Fastcompany article - same as above.
 * Forbes article contains no "independent content" relevant to the company, relies entirely on quotations/interview and fails for the same reasons as above.
 * Investopedia article(wayback version) fails for the same reasons as above.
 * LifeHacker article has not been written by a staff writer (possible RS concerns) but the article itself only gives a brief overview of how to use the website with a screenshot and contains no information about the company itself, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Xconomy article is based on an company announcement about succeeding in getting funding, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * WSJ Blogs article fails as blogs are not accepted as RS. Also fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the Xconomy reference above.
 * LinkedIn article fails for the same reasons as above.
 * Techcrunch article fails for the same reasons as above.
 * All in all, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any articles that do. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: We understand that our Policygenius Wikipedia page hasn’t been updated in a while and included only basic information, but there’s a lot that has happened since that original version. We’ve included information below that will help provide credibility and can be used to clean up what is currently displayed on the page. First, some insights around our co-founder and CEO, Jennifer Fitzgerald:
 * She is the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year New York 2019, one of Fast Company’s 100 Most Creative People in Business for 2018 and is one of only four women founders in Fintech to raise more than $50 million in funding. Jennifer has shared insights in major publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and more.


 * Features in credible and authoritative news outlets:
 * Inc: How This Founder Overcame Hundreds of Rejections to Finally Raise $52 Million
 * Inc: Starting a Business? Ask These 5 Essential Money Questions First
 * Entrepreneur: This Entrepreneur Shares How to Name Your Company — or Fix a Bad Name
 * Forbes: One Of The Five Female Fintech Founders To Have Raised Fifty Million In Funds
 * MarketWatch: Short-term health insurance plans are dirt cheap for good reasons
 * Goop: Understanding Life Insurance — And Getting the Best Policy


 * Other awards and accolades of Policygenius:
 * EY Announces Winners for the Entrepreneur Of The Year 2019 New York Award additional source
 * Inc Best Places to Work 2018 and 2019 additional source
 * Fast Company The Most Creative People in Business 2018
 * 100 Women Making Money, Creating Jobs and Changing the World — Top 100 Female Founders List
 * 2018 Entrepreneur 360 List


 * In addition to the insurance marketplace, Policygenius also produces the Policygenius Magazine, which is editorially independent and regularly publishes content. The magazine received an honorable mention for best content series in Nov. 2018 and also regularly produces annual surveys on topics from health care to how couples and parents manage their money.


 * These surveys have been covered in major publications, including:
 * CBS Moneywatch: Deadline looms for Obamacare Open Enrollment
 * Houston Chronicle: Obamacare enrollment opens, but fate remains uncertain
 * Bustle: Couples Aren't Communicating About Money, New Survey Finds
 * Forbes: How to really save money on car insurance
 * The Knot: The One Thing You Should Do Postwedding for a Happier Marriage
 * Brides: The Financial Pros and Cons of Keeping Your Money Separate From Your Partner
 * FOX Business: Parents reveal how much they'd be willing to pay to stop their child's temper tantrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisdelame (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Response Thank you for spending the time to put together these links in good faith. One issue is that the *volume* of links doesn't matter for the purposes of establishing notability - all that is required is a minimum of two links that meet the criteria. Your (and our) time would be much better served by providing links that met the criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the weight placed on in-depth significant and "independent content". The last one is often misunderstood but is summarised nicely in WP:ORGIND: 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.
 * This means that references that rely extensively on interviews, quotations and information provided by the company (e.g. these articles by Inc, Entrepreneur, Forbes and Goop) or references that are based on company announcements or PR announcements (e.g. PRNewsWire fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Articles must also provide significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* (not on their chief executive/founder), therefore mentions-in-pass or inclusion in lists or brief profiles using company-provided information (e.g. Inc 2, MarketWatch, INC profile, Fastcompany CEO profile, Inc Women-in-business profile and Entrepreneur list) fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Finally, articles that are based on company publications/reports have no independent content relating to the *company* (the topic of this article) and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * In summary, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 12:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply:  HighKing Thank you for your insights and guidance here. We’ve read over the notability requirements and now we’re sending along a few sources we believe meet these guidelines.
 * New York Times
 * Wall Street Journal
 * New York Times Francoisdelame (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, the best advice I can give you is to look for articles which talk about the company and which don't include quotations/interviews from the company/founder. For example, if you read any of the last three articles and ask yourself "What has the *journalist* said about the *company* (not the founder, etc) that comes from their own opinion/analysis/investigation?", you are left with next to nothing. It doesn't matter that the source is the NYT or WSJ if the journalist is simply printing soundbites from the company - this is not considered "independent content" for the purposes of establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Company is no more notable than any other online insurance agency. The products they sell are commodities. Nor is the business model novel. (Given that, an independent expose about how they wrangled $50 million in venture capital would make the founders notable to me. Note that although Thanos posited an innovative product to attract their investors, it is now notable only for the expose.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete As per Highking, there are no reliable sources, most of the references are blogs or written by freelancers/contributors. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, I agree with that it has serious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues and there are some WP:GNG issues with some of the references but that these issues should also take into consideration of other references that prove notability.  This means that it needs to be rewritten by a non-COI editor or two to get this article up to scratch ASAP.  It seems to me that enough of the reference articles do support noteworthiness and dont have GNG issues, from what I can see from a cursory glance, such as the Wall Street Journal article or the TechCrunch article or the New York Times article.  In short I think that deletion might be a bit cavalier, but then again I would say that as I am more of an inclusionist then a deletionist by default.--Discott (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (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.