Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reddico


 * 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reddico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotionalism for a promotional company. None of the refs are bothe substantial and independent  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, being mentioned in the FT1000 is a substantial mark of notability because the Financial Times is the UK's most reputable financial newspaper, which also has an international reach. Likewise with being listed on the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 (according to Wikipedia Deloitte is "one of the "Big Four" accounting organizations and the largest professional services network in the world"). If the FT and Deloitte say we should pay attention to Reddico, we probably should. The WireHive and Great Place to Work awards might not be quite so well known, but they are still important recognitions of the company's significance. Great Place to Work partners with Fortune to produce 100 Best Companies to Work For in the US, and partners with the FT to produce 100 Best Workplaces in Europe. Great Place to Work might not have a Wikipedia page yet (it probably should), but it is notable to be given an award by the consultancy. Secondly, all the references are independent. (Also, what is a "promotional company"? And should the fact that Reddico is involved in marketing mean that it should not have a Wikipedia page? After all, many other marketing companies do have Wikipedia entries.)--Evenmadderjon (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the Financial times would have be a solid reference if it had written anything at all about the company. But it's just a list, showing that they went from 13 to 18 employees, which is completely normal for a small company that is just getting started. The other sources aren't much better, the greatplacetowork source says: "We’re an award winning digital marketing agency," so that's just the company talking about itself. Deloitte is not an independent, reliable news source, they're an accounting firm, or a "professional services network". perrysaccountants is also an accountant, not a reliable source for news. Per: WP:RS/P The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun. Kent online seems a little better, but I'm not convinced that local news from Tonbridge (population 40,356) is the kind of significant coverage WP:NCORP requires: attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability (WP:AUD). Forbes "contributors" are not reliable sources. Wirehive is a "a specialist cloud technology partner for agencies". Winning an award like "Most Respected Digital Agency" from wehive isn't the least bit remarkable. With categories like: "Best Use of Search", "Consumer Site of the Year", "B2B Site of the Year", "Agency Team of the Year",  "Agency Leader", "Rising Star", "Not For Profit Site of the Year", "Digital Experience of the Year", "Brand Impact of the Year", "Performance Marketing Campaign", "Agency For Good", "Best Data Driven Campaign", "Digital Transformation", "Best Content Driven Campaign", "One to Watch", "Best Use of Emerging Technologies", it's wonder that was an agency that didn't win something . A local newpaper and a tabloid does not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" make. Vexations (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete FT1000 doesn't work as WP:NCORP explicitly says top lists aren't good sources. Same for the rest that the user above me cites. Who's sentiment about the sources and general lack of reliable sources I totally agree with.
 * Keep Being nominated for the FT1000 is not 'a list, showing that they went from 13 to 18 employees'. To be included you have to be one of the European 'companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue' according to the FT site (https://www.ft.com/content/238174d2-3139-11e9-8744-e7016697f225). I.E. it a significant - indeed notable - achievement, not just hiring five extra employees. It looks like the blurb on Great Place to Work might have been written by someone at Reddico, but the main point is that the organisation (which I think we can agree is a body that is trusted by many influential businesses) has analysed their operations and given them an award. While it is true that Deloitte is not a media company, it is a reliable news source, and one which is used frequently on Wikipedia (e.g. the Premier League football team Arsenal page: Arsenal F.C. and finances amongst many others). The Mirror is undeniably a tabloid, but is generally considered a trustworthy news source in the UK (where I live) - incidentally the story is also covered in the Forbes piece. Kent Online is indeed local, but is used as a reference on numerous Wikipedia pages (Google this: www.kentonline.co.uk site:en.wikipedia.org). Forbes is a reliable news source for Wikipedia, and Roger Trapp (according to his profile page on Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/#363f863a10c3) is a "UK-based journalist with a longstanding interest in management.... [and] was for many years an editor and writer at the Independent and Independent on Sunday and [has] written three books". I think we can call him and the publication 'reliable'. Reddico's WireHive award might not be the company's most highest accolade, but it would be remiss to not mention it. So, Reddico have been thought of as notable by the FT, Forbes, Deloitte which are all giants in their field, this makes a compelling reason to keep the page.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "the FT1000 is not a list". FT1000 "The FT 1000: third annual list of Europe’s fastest-growing companies", The FT 1000, compiled with Statista, lists the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue between 2014 and 2017." They call it a list. It's in list form. It's a list. Also note their "Criteria for inclusion in the list" section, where none of the things they use to qualify companies for the list are notable in Wikipedia. Let alone say anything about the notability of the company IRL. Revenue of at least €100,000, not notable. Revenue of at least €1.5 million, not notable. The company is independent, not notable. If a company is listed on a stock exchange, not notable either. Also, that they are completely arbitrary. Like being "independent", whatever difference that makes. Whereas, at least for top lists like the billboard top selling albums which Wikipedia allows it's based on selling the most albums. Which is actually notable on it's own. Whereas, nothing would every qualify for an article due to being "independent." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , To get a sense of in what way being listed on the FT10000 affects a company's notability and to find out  how many companies on the FT1000 list have Wikipedia articles, I created User:Vexations/ft1000. Going through the list, I find some that I know for a fact have been created by paid contributors ot show signs of undisclosed paid editing. Very few of them are actually indisputably notable. Deliveroo, sure, no problem. As for the FT giving Reddico  an award: no. This is not an "award". They ranked 309 on the list of " European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue between 2014 and 2017". That really means very little. I'll address Roger Trapp and Forbes as a source in a separate reply. Vexations (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Re My point was that Reddico being mentioned on the FT site did not indicate the company 'went from 13 to 18 employees' as suggested by suggested by Vexations. Further, I don't think that the FT1000 is based on 'completely arbitrary' inclusion criteria. After all the Financial Times Global 500 has its own page. Maybe being listed on the stock exchange is not notable in itself, but all these criteria together do make a notable list, unless the editorial standards at the FT have slipped over the last few years. Regarding the point on 'independence', The Independent is a respected newspaper here in the UK, and I mentioned it because the journalist at Forbes had been employed in a relatively senior position there (editor), which contradicts the point made by Vexatious that "Forbes "contributors" are not reliable sources". i.e. Roger Trapp is a reputable source.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the company 'went from 13 to 18 employees' as suggested by suggested by Vexations Ah, yes, I misread that. The entry is


 * So they went from 5 employees to 18. They're a small startup. It is unsurprising that they grew. We expect that from startups. From what I can tell, they now (2020) have 25 employees. Growth in number of employees from 2017–2020 is already about half of what it was from 2014–2017. This is normal. If their growth was exponential, or linear, that would be something. Vexations (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. That really puts it into perspective. What I meant about the criteria being arbitrary was that there is nothing inherently or universally notable about a startup having revenue of at least €100,000. Like why that amount exactly, except that Financial Times choose it? Why not €200,000, or some other amount? Whereas, with an artist who has an album in the top ten selling albums of all time everyone agrees what that means and why it's notable. Re 'independence', I wasn't talking about The Independent. I was talking about them making a company being independent, I.E. not a subsidiary, as one of their inclusion criteria. Which again, doesn't ultimately make a company more or less notable by any standard other then their own. That's one of the problems with top lists. They are extremely relative. Also, just because The Independent or the financial Times is usually a reputable source to cite, that doesn't mean every single thing they put out is worthy of citing in every instance. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , Regarding Forbes contributors: Source can mean a number of things:the cited text, the author of that text and the publisher. When considering reliability of a source we ought to look at all three.  The problem is that Forbes, when publishing articles by contributors, exercises no editorial control and does no fact-checking. That's why I say that (articles by) Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. It's because Forbes itself is not reliable. As to Roger Trapp himself, per his LinkedIn page, he worked for the Independent from Jan 1990 – Jan 2000 as Business production editor, business news editor and Management editor. His writing has been cited in a number of articles: Skyscanner, Teddybears (TV series), Richard Koch, Samasource, Strategic risk and Eric van der Kleij. Most of those articles cited there were written before 2000 for the Independent. The newer articles that are cited here are all published by Forbes. The argument that we ought to consider him reliable because between thirty and twenty years ago he worked for a publication that we consider generally reliable works both ways: for the past twenty years, his work has been published by a publisher who we (by consensus) consider generally not reliable. Vexations (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Re The number of employees of a company is really not the point here. The digital economy is generally light on employees (eg versus the automotive industry: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/silicon-valley-big-three/527838/), so other criteria are used to judge the size/growth of tech companies. The FT1000 compiled by Statista (itself a reputable company) is based on "the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue". Reddico's inclusion is based on objective analysis of the numbers by Statista and presumably signed off by the FT. The Reddico page does not mention that they are independent or not, I'm not sure why we are talking about this. The statement "just because The Independent or the financial Times is usually a reputable source to cite, that doesn't mean every single thing they put out is worthy of citing in every instance" basically leaves every source in limbo - who's to say that on any occasion a particular reliable source is not worth citing in this instance? Both the FT and Forbes are on the Wikipedia list of Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Indeed Media Bias/Fact Check would rate the trustworthiness of Forbes as 'High', but for their inability to see sense on climate science (so it is listed as 'Mostly Factual') https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/. As this mention of Reddico is about human resources rather than anything climate related, we should put it in the 'high' trustworthiness category according to MediaBiasFactCheck. So, the consensus is that Forbes is reliable. And this particular Forbes article says that Reddico is notable for the unusual way it treats its employees, namely by allowing them to be "accountable for themselves, their time and what they do". This degree of freedom is unusual, in the UK at least, and it makes perfect sense that this is reported on by one of the most respected (except for climate science) names in business news.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. There is well-established consensus, documented at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Forbes.com contributors are not reliable, and continued attempts to overturn that consensus here are disruptive. Vexations (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "Independence", on the FT1000 article here near the bottom in "Criteria for inclusion in the list" section. Third bullet point of inclusion criteria. To quote "The company is independent (the company is not a subsidiary or branch office of any kind)." Re "reliable sources", so would would letters to the editor in reputable sources be reputable just because the source it's in is normally reputable? Of course not and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Context matters. For a good recent example checkout the AfD for AdvanSix where someone cited a Yahoo News "article" (here that was originally a company press release from Business Wire. My guess is the person who cited it didn't even bother to check it and just thought "hey it's Yahoo News. Their reputable." Should we just go with a press release because Yahoo News is normally a usable source? Hell no. I'd say the same goes for Forbes. They even have a disclaimer that guest authors don't represent their opinions. I'd also echo what Vexations posted about there already being consensus on it that should stand.
 * Re Yes, you are correct that Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable, except on two conditions: a) that the article appeared in the print edition b) that "the article was written by a subject-matter expert". Roger Trapp is a subject matter expert, he has had articles published by his old employer The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sme/business-analysis-david-levin-and-the-virtues-of-a-hands-on-approach-2090844.html), the Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/business/sme-digital-marketing/shine-online-to-make-your-company-s-presence-felt-9083219.html), and has written a book What You Need to Know about Business that was published by the respected academic publishing company Wiley. Mr Trapp may be a contributor to Forbes rather than a member of staff, but he publishes articles there regularly (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/#231aea4910c3 it appears he writes five articles a month for them). So, the company appear to trust him and we can see that his writing on Forbes is not single piece of one-off marketing puffery. I would imagine that they trust Mr Trapp and continue to publish his articles because they consider that he is a subject matter expert who has a background writing for and editing the reputable Independent newspaper. (Regarding whether letters to the editor are reputable sources, I would say it depends on two factors: is the the author of the letter a subject matter expert and is the letter factually true? As you said, 'context matters'. In the UK at least, there have been letters to the editors of newspapers of significant historical importance. A newspaper's editorial judgement is employed when selecting letters to the editor.) Anyway, as Mr Trapp is a subject matter expert who regularly writes for Forbes, he should be considered a reliable source.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we have established that this company is notable because in 2019 it was been reckoned to be one of "the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue" as compiled by Statista and verified by the Financial Times, both reputable sources. Further, their unusual working practises (employees can take unlimited days off and work whenever they wish) have warranted attention from Forbes contributor and business subject matter expert Roger Trapp (who has written a book on business published by academic publisher Wiley, What You Need to Know About Business). Based on these points, I believe the page should stay and the deletion tag should be removed. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmadderjon (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't see why unusual working practices means notability. That it warranted attention from a SME doesn't mean anything per WP:NOTINHERITED. This all seems like puffery to me. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Not a single reference I have read even comes close to the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. One of many, perhaps thousands, of marketing firms created in the past 10 years. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.