Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SudShare (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 no consensus. There is clearly no agreement on whether or not the sources found by Cunard show that a detailed article can be written on this subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

SudShare
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although this was recently closed as Keep (non-admin closure) it occurred over a holiday period and although I was more than half-way through the references I was not in a position to comment. I opened a discussion on the Talk page with the original author (COI declared, all above board) and I can immediately see their grasp on our NCORP guidelines is flawed, as were those of the editor that moved from draft only to then nominate for deletion (that is *not* the way to do things, if you're not sure then don't move from drafts to mainspace). There is extensive analysis of sources on the articles Talk space and I can duplicate it here if necessary. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability there topic fails  HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would have had voted "delete" in the 1st nomination. But, I refrained because of 's advice not to involve in any of the pages where the particular AfC reviewer of this page has worked before based on a conversation at WP:ANI. Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, this was not the case with the 1st nomination because of a non-admin closure. So, I hope and believe that we are not violating WP:DRV norms of 6 months waiting/cooling period. If that's the case, then I support the 2nd nomination on this page, and I agree with the nominator's assessment. - Hatchens (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hatchens Thanks for the input! :) I think as long as the votes/comments of the first nomination are included in the consideration of the closer, this is probably a fair renomination (as the facts on the ground haven't changed since then, and it would create a statistical bias not to include them). That being said, I do find myself a bit miffed to still be here, as I don't really enjoy debating policy and would rather move on to projects I don't have a COI in. Alas, here I still am lol Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I had hoped to be able to respond to @HighKing's comments on the SudShare talk page before they re-nominated it for deletion, but I've been dealing with a rather intense flare-up of some chronic health issues this past week or so, and didn't have the ability to respond until now. I apologize for that delay, and for not informing anyone I was dealing with that, leading to a fragmented discussion. I'm going to try to respond to the issues brought up in detail below, but it may take me a while due to lack of energy, and I beg the nominator's/closer's patience if I haven't responded within the normal time limit. Obviously I can't ask you to delay closing if too much time passes, and hopefully this won't even be an issue and I'll be able to respond in full today, but just in case, I feel I owe it to the community to explain my delayed response. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (with acknowledgment that I have a conflict of interest as a former employee of SudShare). [I should not have made it seem like I was submitting a vote here, that was inappropriate of me and I deeply apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, but it should merely be read as an argument for why editors without a COI might want to vote "keep," not a vote in-and-of-itself.] [see page history/Timtrent's comments below for context on the mess above; this apparently should count as a vote] Okay, so there's a lot to discuss here, so I'm going to break my reply up into smaller segments for reading/editing comprehension. I will also be relying on the assumption that editors reading this have already read the discussion on the SudShare talk page, and will continue where that left off. Please let me know if you have any issues with my formatting, or if you need a quick recap of the preceding discussion.
 * The first issue that I'd like to bring up here is that of the concept of "puff pieces," their definition, and how they relate to WP:NCORP. The reason I'm bringing this up is because HighKing (who, it should be noted, I think is a pretty awesome editor in general, although I'm arguing against a large swath of his past AfD comments) uses the concept extensively to dismiss a large number of sources (for failing NCORP specifically) on both the SudShare page as well as many other pages nominated for AfD in the past. This, I believe, is due to a (good faith) mistaken impression both of what a "puff piece" actually is, and how that effects notability concerns. For reference, here is HighKing's definition of a "puff piece," as taken from the SudShare talk page discussion.
 * ""First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces.""


 * This definition is commendable for its clarity, but differs significantly from the commonly accepted meaning of the term. How do I know this? Well, let's take a look at this excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the history and definition of the term:
 * "In the classic journalism textbook “News Reporting and Writing,”          Melvin Mencher      defines “puff piece” or “puffery” as a “publicity story or a story that contains unwarranted superlatives.”....a 1732 article in London Magazine explains that “puff” is a “cant word” (or bit of jargon) “for the applause that writers or booksellers give their own books &c. to promote their sale.”....In legal usage, “puffery” took on the meaning of overblown advertising based on subjective claims.....“Puff piece” has continued to grow as a derisive jab against fawning media accounts—as has its antonym “hatchet job,” for an unfair attack on someone or something.....to someone predisposed to dislike the subject matter, even the most dispassionate report might look like a puff piece.


 * Note that there is no mention in this article, or in any article I could find with a quick google search, that defines a "puff piece" as a piece of media with any specific format, as described by HighKing. Rather, the generally accepted definition seems to be a piece of media loaded with "unwarranted superlatives," very similar to Wikipedia's own definition of MOS:PUFFERY (also see WP:PUFF, and WP:BUZZ): "positively loaded language" designed to promote the subject of an article. This does not mean that any and every article which only talks about positive aspects of a person, corporation, or entity is a puff piece, but rather that puff pieces are specifically loaded with unwarranted superlatives.
 * Secondly, let's assume that an article is indeed a "puff piece" as described by HighKing. Does that make any difference in assessing notability for WP:NCORP or WP:BIO? I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Looking at WP:PUFF, WP:BUZZ, and MOS:PUFFERY, it is notable that all of these pages are about writing style within Wikipedia, not that of outside sources. It's a matter of common sense (and I'm sure there's an explicit policy about it somewhere) that sources do not have to follow WP:MOS to be establish notability or reliability. Rather, the core question is if the source can be trusted to be truthful (even if it does not contain a complete history of the subject), and if discussion of the subject can be considered "significant" (if one wishes to use the source to establish notability). The "feel" of the article, quite simply, does not and should not play a role here. The one exception to the above rule of thumb, per WP:NEWSORG, is that if the article is clearly an opinion piece, or if the publisher has a reputation for inaccuracy, then it should not be used in most contexts. If an article contains excessive "unwarranted superlatives," than of course we shouldn't use it to establish WP:NCORP, but if it merely follows the format that HighKing describes, that should not influence our judgement when considering NCORP decisions at AfD.
 * One objection that I can imagine being made at this point is that I'm failing to consider WP:ORGIND. This is not so. To paraphrase from ORGIND:
 * "There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product), and independence of the content (the content must not be produced by interested parties)"

This clearly includes significant Independent content, as defined above, primarily though rather colorful opinion/analysis. As someone (with a declared conflict of interest) who was an employee of SudShare at the time this article came out, I can assure you that no executive there would have signed off on an article straight up calling customers lazy. If that isn't independent of the company, I don't know what is! The WP:SNOWFLAKE aspect of SudShare is its business model of using independent contractors who wash at home, rather than at laundromats. That's not the product, that's the core of what makes the business notable. Yes, obviously a review talking about sudsters, the anxiety of giving away your laundry for someone else to do, and the way the company allows connections to form with the workers involves the product (cleaned clothes), but in this case that clearly isn't the focus for much of the article. It's a discussion about the concept of trust and ownership, how SudShare works as a unique business model, and the quality (or lack thereof) of its workers/contractors, not solely (or even primarily) a pure product review. "....I see it in my own business constantly. My ability to attract and retain talent is highly influenced by my willingness to offer them as much control over their time as possible. That’s not always easy in a deadline-driven job. I fully recognize that working for us comes second to whatever is going on in their lives and that they will prioritize their time accordingly, and as a leader it’s ultimately on me to make it all work. That’s clearly more doable in some industries than others, which explains why some are suffering so acutely for workers, I think. You generally can’t let front-line health or safety workers create their own hours or work environment. Someone has to be in the kitchen cooking when the customer is there to eat. You can’t assemble a complex product or process a hog from home. But we as leaders also can benefit by thinking more like that teenager in Baltimore. And by remembering that just because we don’t necessarily see them, workers like Stoopes are creating their own version of work.....It’s possible to build culture and loyalty even in a more fragmented workplace. But, again, it takes a more modern approach. Fittingly, right after I spoke with my first Sudster, I stopped by Talent Draft Day, an event hosted this year by the University of Sioux Falls....USF president Brett Bradfield was one of many who heard me retell the story of the Sudster I’d just met earlier that day. It didn’t surprise him, either. “I’ve had some people ask me when I think things are going to get back to normal,” he told me. Neither one of us said anything for a moment, probably thinking the same thing. Forget normal. Change and disruption are the new normal. And if you’re struggling to hire, don’t forget about people like the Sudster." I think this speaks for itself as an excellent independent opinion piece that uses an interview as a jumping-off point, but which ultimately meets NCORP with a unique reading of SudShare's employees and business practices through the lens of the changing workforce.
 * If an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty writes an article which is generally favorable towards a company (but does not cross over into an opinion piece), that does not violate ORGIND, although you may personally wish the journalist had dug up some dirt on the company during her coverage or something. To assume that any positive coverage must be the work of company insiders, even when dealing with, for example, a front-page article on a 16-times Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper just doesn't seem right to me. Yes, we must do our due diligence to insure that corporations aren't "gaming the system," but this reading of NCORP seems to be going way too far, which is why I have chosen to start off by talking about this.
 * I will continue my discussion (and subsequent points/responses) in a reply to this below, when I have the energy to continue writing.
 * Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Response It is notable that you've taken a nit-picking approach to my use of the term "puff piece" - fine, call it a "puff profile" then so that there's no overlap with the other term.
 * Most of your argument is designed to avoid the actual test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met. (Hint: We read the actual words in the actual article.) Your entire argument above can be summed up as a modification to ORGIND along the lines of 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 *except* if its an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty. It is fairly easy to predict where we'd end up if we went down this particular road. Please see WP:LAWYER.
 * In our discussions to date, I've asked you to point to specific content within any of those articles which meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and I'm still waiting. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * [writing out a detailed response, will post once complete (hopefully this afternoon). Putting this placeholder here to indicate I'm not ignoring this, just writing slowly] Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Response HighKing I apologize for the "nitpicky" style of my my argument so far. You're also totally correct that I haven't yet addressed the specific content within the articles here in favor of a more abstract approach. I can understand your concern that I'm leaning dangerously close to Wikilawyering, and I'll try to be better about that in the future (though some of this is just my personal long-winded style, and for that I can't honestly promise I'll be better, since I'm quite terrible at condensing my thoughts).
 * First however, just to answer your objection, I'm afraid that there might have been a misunderstanding. The core of my above argument was simply that your criteria for determining that something is a "puff piece," "puff profile," or whatever you wish to call it, is a disqualifying criteria that seems to be of your own invention, rather than originating in something within CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, other Wikipedia guidelines, or historical definitions (though you're right that the latter was irrelevant, and I apologize for getting carried away). That is to say, my understanding is that the "test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met" is to check if the content can be clearly attributable to an independent party, regardless of if that third party is writing in a format you've identified that you don't personally like or not. I did not mean to imply that we should simply trust journalists with solid reputations, though looking back, I see how my words could have easily been read that way. One place where journalistic reputation does genuinely come into play is when we're dealing with a known bad actor (such as fake news sites, tabloids, and some trade journals), which I brought up with the intention of saying that that isn't what we are dealing with here. Additionally, as per WP:CORPDEPTH, (under the "Numerical facts" subheading), "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." This clearly seems to indicate that we can indeed be more trusting of the independence of a reputable source, though that should in no way stop us from doing due diligence. Sincere apologies for the confusion, and I hope this helps you understand my position more clearly.
 * Okay, now on to specifics! I'll be going in the order of the articles you brought up in your last comment on the SudShare talk page, rather than in order of what I personally find to be the "strongest" sources, so I will be bringing up some genuinely borderline cases here, which I expect we might reasonably disagree on. I've also skipped a number of references brought up that you've either successfully convinced me aren't valid for NCORP (if you want I'd be happy to list them), or which we've already discussed to the point that I don't think further clarification on my part will help (happy to list those as well, of course, if you feel that would be useful).
 * With regards to the ESPN Sioux Falls reference, as discussed before, it does use a previously-written Sioux Falls article as its jumping-off point, but, I would argue, adds significant enough "original and independent opinion" and analysis to be considered independent for the purposes on NCORP. (For reference, the relevant quote in full is "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." Note the use of the words " must include" rather than "must consist solely of"—I think there was some confusion about that in your initial comment on the talk page). The relevant independent opinion and analysis in the article is as follows (apologies in advance for the length, but as you asked for direct quotes...):""Doing laundry is one of those universal chores that fall under the heading of nuisance. You know you need to do it for health and social reasons. After all, family members and friends prefer to spend time around loved ones who don't smell like 10-year-old sneakers. Plus, it's just not good form to wear the same t-shirt for two weeks, or turn your underwear inside out and wear it again! But you're busy, very busy! So busy that your hamper is overflowing. Or for some people, your bedroom floor is covered with so many dirty clothes, it looks and smells like a garbage dump. Or you're lazy, very lazy! Your trunk or truck bed has bags and bags of so many clothes, you no longer remember what might be in them. You only know for sure that your favorite pair of jeans has been missing for a month. Busy or lazy, it doesn't matter anymore....[At this point, information from the prior article is basically repeated]....Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who simply hate doing laundry, because SudShare is now available in 400 cities, with more being added all the time. If you decide to hire a “Sudster” the typical customer can expect to pay $35 to $40 per service. That is of course unless you had to rent a Pod, which is currently sitting on your driveway full of your dirty laundry!""
 * With regards to the Sioux Falls article the ESPN article is based on, I think it might be (weakly) arguable that the use of cross-referencing the company's statements (such as the amount of money they claim can be made by contractors) with those of independent contractors counts as "fact checking". Probably not worth investigating further in this context, but I can imagine situations in which that sort of consideration could be relevant.
 * You've previously dismissed The Root article as being about the product, rather than the company, and asked me to specify where the company as a whole is discussed. Here are some relevant passages from the article, with some sections that are clearly about the company rather than the product in bold:"I haven’t been to a laundromat in eons and frankly, all of the ones close to me are probably drug fronts. Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound.....While I feel a way about some random stranger both washing my clothes and HAVING THEM for so long—real talk, they could just decide not to deliver my clothes to me, kind of like that time I watched my UberEats driver drive RIGHT past my house doing like 65 mph with my order of Popeyes only to never be seen on the app again—I welcomed the opportunity to not have to fold everything.....So imagine my surprise when I’m getting clothes back folded, impressively so and more efficient and neatly than I do. I wasn’t prepared. I tipped one SudShare person $20 JUST because I was impressed with her folding. The way she folded my shirts gave me a new way to fold to maximize more space in my drawers....I was looking forward to having my clothes delivered so I could see what new and innovative ways folks are folding their clothes. I really didn’t know I cared this much about folded clothes until I had no choice but to have others wash my clothes. I’ve got new techniques and all.....Now thats not to say that the entire experience has been sweet. For instance, I’ve learned that many, many of you have no business washing OR folding folks clothes.....I have been testing certain clothes out, on purpose so I can build up a roster of folks who I’m fine with doing the wash; in SudShare you can request folks who have washed your clothes before.....I got one bag back of clothes and the socks weren’t even folded together. WHO DOES THAT? No (good) tip for you. Not to mention this same person didn’t even try to fold the shirts in a way that didn’t cause wrinkle-age....this SudSharer is basically the Alamo now—I’ll never forget. But I will say that I have mostly learned new and innovative ways to fold my clothes....With that said....this life starts to add up and ultimately nobody will care about my clothes the way that I do. But there are a few SudSharers who I now trust. They got good tips. And now my folded laundry looks different which is basically like having new clothes so it’s all win over here."
 * I had written a whole thing on the Baltimore Sun article, but saw that Cunard had already provided an excellent explanation with quotes about the notability and independence of the article below, so unless you have further issues or questions not answered there, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to further clutter up this page with what's already been stated.
 * From the FreightWaves article, lines like "As COVID demonstrated, people will pay a premium for convenience, and that holds true for laundry, as evidenced by the exponential growth of a company like SudShare" could be considered independent analysis, although the bulk of the article is definitely not.
 * You asked which portions of the other Sioux Falls article were independent. Here are a few quotes that to me at least, pretty clearly indicate independent analysis/opinion on how SudShare has impacted the workforce:"“Before this, I was doing factory work,” she said. “I did both for a while. And now I’m just doing (gig work) full time.” If you are in manufacturing, or logistics, or food processing, think about that. Stoopes could have been one of your employees. And, unlike what some continue to insist to me, it’s not that she’s sitting at home relying on government assistance. It’s not that she just decided to drop out of the workforce. It’s that instead of working on a production line, she’s in her car delivering other people’s groceries or in her laundry room washing and drying their clothes. And she loves it"
 * I hope all of this helps you understand why I believe in the notability of the SudShare article.
 * Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Was advised of this approach by Tim. Thanks. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources about it are very weak - just announcements and press releases, failing WP:ORGDEPTH utterly.  If you read this, it reads like a business school case study analysis - "imagine you are the CEO of SudShare, a company which...; explain to a potential investor what your company does and why they should invest in it."  Coverage is that which can be had by sending out press releases, not that which comes from having a notable impact on the world.  New restaurants get announcements in local press when they open too.  FalconK (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Falcon Kirtaran Confused by this analysis—sources like https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-prem-bz-pikesville-laundry-app-national-expansion-20211115-3yaj5mughzfrjkiwzh5fqfwinq-story.html and https://www.theroot.com/my-washer-broke-and-ive-had-to-outsource-my-favorite-ch-1846972718 aren't exactly "that which can be had by sending out press releases," and are not primarily local in content. Regardless, what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not, and how a journalist finds out about a given company in the first place shouldn't be relevant unless they specifically rely on press releases for the content itself, which is not being done here. [See above conversation; my view has changed slightly (though not completely) since this was posted] Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You say "what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not" which is largely correct, but you've omitted the bit that says the fact-checking must be "clearly attributable". You're trying to introduce an assumption that a journalist's integrity shouldn't be questioned and we should base a decision on the "quality" of the journalist. Nothing in the guidelines even comes close to this assumption and for good reason. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to quickly note that a number of articles seem to have come out since the wiki page was last edited. Some are probably relevant to the discussion, though others are probably not. New articles include:
 * This                 MinneInno article about SudShare moving headquarters (probably useless for NCORP)
 * This front-cover article in Mishpacha Magazine, a family-oriented Jewish newspaper (I found out about it from my local Jewish community talking about it), which seems pretty in-depth: https://mishpacha.com/loads-of-profit/ This is almost certainly of relevance, and I highly recommend at least checking it out. (I personally think it should meet NCORP, though my guess is HighKing might consider it a "puff piece," as discussed above) [per HighKing's points below, I no longer believe this, and concur with their assessment]
 * This interview, which isn't of any use on Wikipedia beyond serving as a new source for some non-controversial facts.
 * This article, which while seemingly partially based on past reporting, does also include some original reporting, which might be helpful.
 * This listicle article; make of it what you will (probably not much?)
 * Hope this is helpful :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Mishpacha Magazine reference is a puff profile (my new phrase!) that follows the same dull format as all the others - "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". This one even publishes a photo from the "Family archives". I mean, c'mon, are you even trying?
 * The Baltimore Magazine article is also a "puff profile". Not sure what "some original reporting" is meant to mean relative to our guidelines. If you mean ORGIND then you're gonna need to highlight which bit meets ORGIND because the article is *entirely* based on information provided by the company. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * HighKing This isn't me "trying" or not, just posting some potentially relevant updates on the situation. In retrospect mentioning my personal opinion was a mistake here, since that wasn't my primary goal, and I didn't want to be adversarial (though I realize I've clearly come across that way). I'll try to address the details with quotes in the reply to our conversation above I'm working on, as per your request. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me with an aspect of your position I'm confused about—would you mind linking some Wikipedia articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines? I'm having a really hard time even imagining what an article of that sort would look like for you, which means I'm probably misunderstanding something about your position. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'll take it to your Talk page rather than cluttering this one up and for us to avoid WP:BLUD allegations. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have scratched my head over this one. I have also done a WP:BEFORE set of research. The problem is that it is impossible to find references that are not themselves Churnalism. That means thsi is WP:ADMASQ. The quantity of the references also shows WP:BOMBARD, unsurprising in articles for pay. I find it fails WP:CORP. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the articles include quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Notability (organizations and companies) and there is enough depth of coverage to meet Notability (organizations and companies).<ol> <li> The article is an in-depth profile of the company. It includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but it also includes independent research and reporting. The article notes: "SudShare, which the teen launched four years ago with his father, an entrepreneur, now has customers in 400 cities who pay other people to wash their clothes. The service employs an army of gig-economy contractors, paid by the pound, to wash those clothes in their home laundry rooms. ... Like Uber, SudShare works through a scheduling app and on-demand pickup — of laundry, that is. For $1 per pound and a $20 minimum, customers can leave bags of clothes at their doors to be picked up, washed, dried, folded and delivered the next day." The article quotes from an independent expert: "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand."</li> <li> The article notes: "Since its local takeoff roughly three years ago, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities, now with more than 55,000 Sudsters spread across the U.S. And though much has changed since 2018—the Fertel brothers moved to Minneapolis, MN, where SudShare is now headquartered—“Baltimore remains one of our biggest cities,” says Fertel."</li> <li> The author reviews her experiences with SudShare. I consider a review of the author's experiences and learnings with using SudShare to be significant coverage about SudShare. The article notes: "Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound."</li></ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SudShare to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Response Almost none of the above argument by Cunard meets our NCORP guidelines. For example, a "review of the author's experiences" with the product/service is not applicable for establishing the notability of the company - if the topic was about the product/service then it might. Cunard's understanding of "Independent Coverage" ignores the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Cunard says an article "includes independent research" but then quotes a generic paragraph that has appeared in several of the other advertorials. Cunard also appears to misunderstand the requirement for such "Independent Content" to also assist with CORPDEPTH, the quotation from the marketing exec - that its a "good idea" - falls well short. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the analysis that a "review of the author's experiences" is insufficient to establish notability under Notability (organizations and companies). It would not be beneficial to the reader to have the article only be about the company's product/service of providing laundry services through independent contractors. But if refocusing the article would change your viewpoint to support retention, then that is an option. Regarding "the quotation from the marketing exec", the quotation was not from a marketing executive. It was from a marketing university professor. The full quote is "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand." This is independent and detailed analysis from an expert at a university. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Response You're conflating the two different uses we make of references. The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* - but like you say, it can still be used to support "fleshing out" the article and support facts, etc. When we say the reference fails NCORP, we're only ruling it out from assistingg in establishing notability, we're not banning its use. On the quote from the marketing professor, where's the "in-depth information" about the *company*? It's a throwaway opinion of little content, does not assist in establishing notability because there's isn't enough from her. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/SudShare participants:, , , and . Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom. and in complete agreement with the reasons provided by, and . - Hatchens (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the references are press releases or announcements. I notice that a number of the sources suggest as acceptable above contain extensive information--on prices, and details of using the system, which is not encyclopedic content . The definition of promotional content is content intended to appeal to the prospective user, and almost every one of these qualifies. (They all tend to copy each other, which is a good sign that they're derived form the same press release) The reason for the promotional  coverage in so many local sources is, of course, that during the pandemic a great many people were looking for such services--we should indeed cover this, but in general articles and a very few of the refs above might be useful there. Google and the thousands of local web sites did an excellent job covering the possibilities--I have an extensive collection of links relevant to my area, and probably so do many of us. Despite the evident desires of some former officers of the WMF, we shouldn't try to duplicate Google.
 * I should add that. the function of a paid editor is to write encyclopedic content on topics relevant to their employer, if they are able to do so, not argue that promotional  content is encyclopedic .   They should submit the content, and let the rest of us decide about it.  DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur with . I do not expect, ever, an article by a paid editor to be at AfD precisely because they are paid to:
 * know, understand, and implement our policies
 * write good, clean copy
 * avoid any form of advertorial
 * hit the ground running
 * eschew WP:BOMBARD
 * In short I expect them to write good, clean, well referenced copy. I expect it not be subject to a subsequent deletion process. Their arguing against deletion is ludicrous for a paid editor. Improving the article to seek to ensure it is kept is their job. It is either notable, or it is not. At present it is not. Period. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Timtrent, DGG Although I am a paid editor, I am also a human being (shocking, I know!). If I see an article I worked on get nominated for deletion due to a perceived lack of notability, and I believe that the nominator has made a mistake in their reasoning and the subject of the article is indeed notable, I am going to defend it. Expecting a paid editor's work to be so perfect that nobody else could even possibly disagree with them seems rather strange to me. And if somebody disagrees with me and wants to delete an article I wrote, then as a human being who values their work, I'm going to try to explain why I value that article as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be completely silent in such matters. Of course, I will respect the AFD process, and if at the end of the day it turns out I'm wrong, I will try to accept that and move on. But for now, I want my position to at least be properly represented here for the record, which I cannot expect will automatically be done without me. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Timtrent, DGG I was privately told that I'd made a serious mistake earlier, and I want to acknowledge and apologize for that mistake. The formatting of my first comment started with the words "keep" in bold, which I included, thinking it was merely an indicator of the direction of the statement to follow, rather than a vote itself. I was totally wrong about that, and what I did actually indicated I was voting myself, which you accurately pointed out as being deeply inappropriate. I didn't understand what the issue was until now, and I apologize for my earlier defensive tone and misleading inclusion of the bolded format. I've struck out that statement above, and ask the closer not to count my comments as a vote. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yitzilitt (paid) From my perspective you are perfectly entitled to offer the opinion that it be kept as long as (since this is an article for pay) you do that from your paid account and only from that account. I see you did that. As you know you may offer the formal bolded opinion once and once only. I believe you have done that, albeit struck out. I see no objection to your removing the striking out. Authors are allowed their opinion. It would be awful were that not so.
 * What you may wish to consider is that those who offer rebuttals to every opinion that runs counter to their desires seem not to prevail in these discussions. Less truly is more in AfD discussions. One good arrow fired once with excellent policy based arguments is all one needs. The closing admin will weigh policy based arguments in their close. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent Thanks for the advice, I'll unstrike my previous strikethrough (and will add a note to the effect that I've done just that). As both you and now also Elemimele have pointed put, less is more here, and I've lowered my chance of success by my long-winded replies. If you don't mind me asking, how do you typically manage to pull off minimalism? This is my first time seriously defending an article at AfD, and I'm finding it very difficult to be concise. What I mean by that (oh god I'm doing it now aren't I) is that either 1) I'll say something, and then people's responses indicate that they misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I want to reply to be more clear about what I intended, or 2) Someone else will say something that I think is incorrect/misguided, and if nobody else has pointed that out (especially if the issue at play is a subtle one), I feel compelled to reply with a technical counter-argument. Regarding 2, I guess what you're saying is that the closer will be competent enough to figure that out on their own, so I don't need to worry about that (though it might give me a lot of anxiety lol), but for 1, the issue is probably on me and my imperfect writing skills, so I don't feel like I can assume even a closer would get what I meant to say if I don't clarify myself.
 * I've read the AfD guidelines of course, but I still feel rather lost when it comes to social norms here. If I'm breaking any of them now, please forgive me/let me know. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yitzilitt (paid) I will respond on your talk page. There is a danger of diverting this discussion Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: (1) because all the information I can find is routine churnalism/interviews/standard promotional press-releases, and (2) because if we don't delete, we send a message that anyone can get their company advertised in Wikipedia merely by interminable polite bludgeoning and wearing everyone down with walls of text. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sourcing in the article and that provided by Cunard. Responding to  this criticism of the sources isn't necessarily wrong but ignores an important nuance: our notability guidelines mainly exist to make sure that the articles we have have enough coverage that they can be useful to our readers while being based off of reliable sources. Nit-picking about whether a source covers a product or a corporation isn't productive; it would not make sense to have an article simply on the SudShare product given that the product effectively is the corporation. And no, I don't think damnatio memoriae is warranted for this company either. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between making sure articles are useful (by including information on products for example) and using product reviews as references for establishing notability. Two different tasks, two different objectives. Nit-picking about which references may be used to establish notability is called following the guidelines. If the company is notable (as established by references that meet NCORP) then by all means have a section on the product/service. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.