Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riskified


 * 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, there are three firm !votes to keep, premised on a reasonable examination of available sources, two firm !votes to delete, and one !vote leaning delete. Normally, the nominator would be counted as a vote to delete, but in this case User:Balkywrest as nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Septrillion. It would be odd to give substantial weight to the opinion of a sockpuppet in a discussion, and no less so as nominator. Thus, although the opinion of the nominator is not discounted entirely, it must be given little weight in the outcome here. Given the previous extension of time for this discussion, and the tendency over the course of the discussion for additional sources to be found, relisting this nomination in expectation of a different consensus seems an unwise use of resources. The article can clearly be improved by the addition of sources raised in the discussion, and those supporting its inclusion should consider taking on this task. bd2412 T 02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Riskified

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources are insufficient to prove notability. Balkywrest (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Leaning delete: all of the sources, even the ones which appear "major", are actually blog-like, such as the WSJ one.   SITH   (talk)   14:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - When you take away the routine funding announcements and brief mentions, there are sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Wall Street Journal piece is not a blog post in the typical sense of the word. It is written by a staff writer who says has been employed there since 2013. Other significant coverage includes Jerusalem Post, another JP, and Globes to name a few. The page itself needs cleaned up and stripped of the promo, but it certainly meets WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The WSJ reference is even listed as a blog post on Riskified's website ...  HighKing++ 12:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Just a promotional directory listing. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a TechCrunch article which is a yellow-light source, and can be counted for limited additional notability, on top of sources already discussed above. I don't see any discussion of Globes  as a source, but it appears reliable and is a national newspaper, so I assume this article can be counted towards notability as well. Lastly, there's a Mother Jones article  which is definitely a green-light reliable source, and is definitely not biased in favor of this company. That's decent press in two countries.  - WPGA2345 -  ☛   01:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. The Globes article is an interview with the founders, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. Both this Jerusalem Post reference and this one are classic chrurnalism - faux "profiles" complete with the usual photo/quotes/vision/growth/funding structure but, you know, no actual "news", fails as not being intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The MotherJones reference is the best of a bad lot but it is merely commenting on the WSJ reference and doesn't provide and in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This company obviously has a marketing dept but the topic does not appear to be notable and fails WP:NCORP and GNG.  HighKing++ 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like there are plenty of sources available that do not amount to churnalism. In addition to the other sources noted on here, there are two articles from The Wall Street Journal (one's a WSJ blog, but it's still a highly reputable source) and there's one from Reuters. Also, a Google News search reveals a number of sources, many of which are funding announcements. I realize that's not a way to contribute to notability, but those sources are at least supplemental. Maybe reworking the draft might help. Gargleafg (talk) 01:06, 15 February 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.