Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RFP360


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

RFP360

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  17:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * keep it seems to me that the news coverage sourced in the article (particularly the feature article in Forbes) is evidence of passing both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  Additionally, the sources in the article point toward passing WP:GNG and other sources online (like this one at insurance journal) support that position.  A question for the nominator-please provide more than just a policy and give a little more detail why you believe the article fails those two points. --Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes is non-RS. Meaning it not a reliable source and is not valid as a source. It cannot be used. The second references at insurance journal is a press-release and also can't be used to establish notability. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. RFP's and RFQ's have been used since the 1950's and there is plenty of software out that services that sector, making this company rather generic, meaning there is nothing special about it.   scope_creep Talk  11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes has been publishing for over a century and is one of the most widely-read and peer-reviewed business magazines on the planet. I'll bite:  how does it violate Reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The WMF classified it a low-quality source as it produces a titanic amount of low-quality content, sometimes by contributors as self-published content and sometimes by real journalists publishing content, all in reaction to the age of social media, when publishing empires are being subsumed. More content I guess means more advertising money. I guess the WMF decided after a while it was impossible for an editor to discern whether it was good or bad content that was being sourced and decided to change the software to show it up as low-quality sources highlighted in red or yellow, depending how bad it is, with a tooltip saying telling you so. Now per policy if your part of the Afc/NPP group, the source must be removed as part of the review process.    scope_creep Talk  13:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This list notes that contributed Forbes articles may be considered if written by a subject matter expert. The author writes extensively about Midwestern tech companies, though I have no benchmark for what depth of background would make them a verifiable subject matter expert. When drafting, I used similar area software companies as a guide for whether this was notable (VeriShip, Inc and Blooom). A search also yielded this company, RFPIO, that appears to provide a similar RFP service and offers similar citations. With these in mind, I also understand that each article must be evaluated on its own merit. I know this context may not be enough to justify keeping the article, as perhaps the articles I based notability on have been incorrectly accepted? However, because I'm new to editing and still learning, I wanted to provide the logic I followed when I created it. Thanks for your time and attention.RayChrysler (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Question for nominator: is there an actual link to this so-called discussion that we can evaluate, or do we just have to take your word for it?  You "guess" the reasoning, you talk about some change in software to show red and yellow sources (which I don't see) and talk about something called the "Afc/NPP" group but you have no reference.  I presume that WMF means Wikimedia Foundation--I've searched the site and found only this one result for "Forbes":  Annette Campbell-White is joining the new Board as its second founding member after Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.  Just typing text doesn't make it true.  Provide a link.  Without that, the reference provided by RayChysler seems to support inclusion.  This is starting to feel disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * On "Forbes" as a source: over 12,500 Wikipedia articles link to the Forbes article.  Please consider that information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's is not really a thing and makes no sense. The appropriate page WP:FORBESCON. What purpose would it serve for me to lie on here. Really?? In NPP/AFC most of these types low-quality reference are pulled per policy. Looking at the other references:

 scope_creep Talk  16:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Forbes. Non-RS
 * 2) Naming of new CEO Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
 * 3) All under one roof. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
 * 4) Partnership. Fails WP:ORGIND Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose
 * 5) RFP365 changes name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
 * 6) Top 10 Company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH brief or passing mentions, such as: of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products
 * 7) Best places to work. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH brief or passing mentions, such as: of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products Fails WP:ORGIND
 * 8) Lockton's buy-in has helped KC startup thrive. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: Fails WP:ORGIND. Company interview.


 * asking again what is "NPP/AFC" ??? --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * New pages patrol and Articles for creation. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * as to WP:FORBESCON, that standard has been met: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert" the article is not self-published but is indeed written by a freelance journalist with a significant online portfolio of news stories.  She is a subject matter expert.  What's going on here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes in deprecated. Even if was still the standard 5-10 years ago, the author is Forbes contributor and it would still be Non-RS. NPP is WP:NPP. AFC is WP:AFC. There is not a single decent reference amongst the lot of the them and the main reason the WP:NCORP notability policy came about. Any article on Wikipedia mainspace, needs secondary, independent, in-depth and reliable sources which is missing her. And it needs more than one source.    scope_creep Talk  23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no policy, guideline, or other methods at WP:NPP nor at WP:AFC. They appear to be workgroups, so there's no real deletion-issue that can be addressed.  We disagree about the application of WP:FORBESCON--it seems you are taking the position that any "Forbes contributor... would still be Non-RS"; but that's not what WP:FORBESCON says.  It specifically encourages exceptions for subject matter experts.  I really believe you are grossly misapplying this guideline.  I also notice you're ignoring the other sources or otherwise dismissing them as a claim of a "standard notice" but feature articles and in-depth coverage are not basic standard notices.  The reasons you post to delete are the exact same reasons that the article should be kept.  Arguments for deletion have to make sense and apply to the case at hand.  What I'm seeing here is a collection of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:  WP:DOESNTBELONG; WP:VAGUEWAVE; WP:UNRS; and WP:TRIVIAL.  But I come back to WP:GNG because the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  That's a pretty widely accepted standard and I'll hang my hat there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * keep According to the guidelines here, the Forbes article is written by an independent reporter who is a subject matter expert, therefore, a valid source. In addition,American City Business Journal (ACBJ) sources are used extensively across Wikipedia as a reliable source. The ACBJ articles cited here speak specifically to notability and are not standard notices, brief announcements nor routine coverage according to the definitions provided here. RayChrysler (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The editor has updated the article in attempt to address WP:HEY. However the two sources similar run of the mill WP:MILL business news.
 * other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGIND. Interview style commentary.
 * Assuming WP:AGF Likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.    scope_creep Talk  08:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is an article about the company, not a listing. It is accompanied by commentary and discussion.
 * Addresses a trend in the legal industry and discusses the company's role in the trend.
 * All in all, it seems we simply interpret the guidelines differently. The WP:MILL guide referenced, says that if there were a company exactly like this one in every city across the globe (like a local cafe) and if the references provided were simply passing mentions (like a list of new businesses) then it would be run of the mill. However, that's not the case. The articles referenced are exclusively about the business. While it appears there are other a couple companies that provide a similar service, the existence of a competitor doesn't negate notability. Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate your attention to this article. I've learned a ton and will continue to work to improve and contribute. RayChrysler (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No we don't. You interpret it wrongly. You have no idea what constitutes notability for company articles. If you had presented a single piece of evidence in the last couple of days of it being notable, I would have picked it up and ran with it, as I would have done any other Afd and do. But you haven't.   scope_creep Talk  14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I was asked to drop my two cents here in a non-CANVAS-y way. I come as a neutral party who is concerned about some heated discussion here. I am a disinterested third party who has no vested interest or passion about startups, let alone this one. I think we all just need to remember this is a discussion and maybe hold off on all the acronyms, okay?.
 * From what I've gathered, Forbes contributors can be just about anyone and have limited oversight (See here). While I'm sure Liz Engel is knowledge about the topic she writes about, it is technically considered self-published. Therefore, Forbes doesn't count towards the notability of this company. Likewise, Bobby Burch of the non-profit Startland News considers himself first and foremost a "Nature and wildlife photographer." Again, while I am sure they all have knowledge about what they are writing about, it doesn't mean it should count towards notability. Another example would be how I am a contributor to a Leafs fan-run website and while I am knowledgeable on the subject, it absolutely cannot be used in articles. When I come across it during GA reviews, I have the editor immediately replace it. I hope this helps with the discussion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . As I mentioned above, I'm still new at this and learning. This was my first article attempt and I was not prepared for this reaction to it. Trying not to take it personally as I know everyone is just passionate about making Wikipedia as excellent as possible. This is certainly very helpful, thanks for taking the time to review and contribute to the discussion. RayChrysler (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate the calm comments and insight from .--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would be helpful to hear from new editors about whether the sources provided demonstrate notability.
 * Delete 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". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. scope_creep above has explained why Forbes sites is not regarded as meeting WP:RS and I will add by saying that part of the website has no editorial oversight and falls into the same category as a blog, which is why is fails as a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per HighKing and scope creep's source analyses. We cannot retain an article for which there is no independent sourcing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (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.