Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next 36


 * 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. Keep....but stub. I don't know exactly if this runs afoul of WP:INVOLVED, but it's clear from this discussion that there is consensus (from those who understand Wikipedia's policies) that the current article is overly promotional. There also appears to be consensus that the underlying subject is notable enough to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. As such, I'm closing this diiscussion as keep, but then I am going to go to the article and stub it. I will keep the two sources provided here that DGG specifically points to as being helpful; other editors are then welcome to re-add reliably sourced info that is neutral in tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Next 36

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a single class at a single school, and i would normally have no hesitation in deleting it as A7. But there seems to be sources about it, indicating it has been cited as an especially interesting example. I would tend to regard the article as rather promotional, but not to the extent of qualifying as G11. At least some of it is copied from their website, but possibly not totally, so if it is notable, that part can be rewritten. I originally tagged it as G12, but on reflection, I can not show it is entirely copyvio. I leave it to the community to decide what to do with it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This program was inspired by a course taught at U of T but is much more than that now. It is a national undergraduate scholarship for entrepreneurial young people - it is awarded to 36 students annually and in 2012 there were 1,003 applicants according to coverage in The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1296061--many-young-canadians-resorting-to-entrepreneurial-route). This program provides undergraduates in Canada with the opportunity to be innovative, entrepreneurial and to develop the skills to create the next big idea in mobile or tablet computing. Think of it more like a Rhodes Scholarship program with a tech focus. The content of the entry is very relevant to undergraduates in Canada in much the same way that these other scholarship programs are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_scholarships).Mcheater (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Definitely more than a single class (when I went through the program there were 6 classes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.181.177 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Next 36 is a national program that supports undergraduate students to help them start real companies. It's definitely not a high school class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.181.177 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.84.202 (talk)


 * Comment: The Next 36 is a startup incubator, similar to YCombinator and Techstars. I should know, as my company started in it. Anulman (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Next 36 is a national incubator program targeting future high impact entrepreneurs. The organization provides teaching, tools and access to a tremendous amount of resources unmatched by even some of the top accelerator programs in the country. This article should not be tagged for A7 or G11 mistakes. The Next 36 is an organization with more than enough content proving it's existence. There have been many press releases in Forbes, Techvibes, PROFIT Magazine, and many others. After reading the article, it is not inaccurate or promotional in any way - merely a source of information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.166.179 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be an awful ot of IP editors and involved parties interested in this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * and the article was written by two SPAs in turn. The arguments above are typical: ITEXISTS, IKNOWITSIMPORTANT, but there's a new one, which I don't recall anyone having the lack of clue to offer before, There have been many press releases. Given that is said about the sources from Forbes, it makes me wonder whether the remarkably similar stories in what are normally thought of as respectable newspapers are press releases as well.  DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE after researching this, and for various reasons. It should probably have been speedied under A7. G11 and G12 should also be strongly considered as most of the text is lifted from their website. I am also a bit alarmed at what looks like what might be a bit of meat puppetry to me. All but two of the commenters above are IP accounts, of the remaining two, one admits to being involved with the company, the other is a single issue account. But all that aside, the sources are weak. They are all passing mentions, original research, or press releases, nothing substantial. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP The arguments for deletion appear to breakdown into one of two main arguments. The first is that The Next 36 is not notable. Notability guidelines have 5 listed criteria, Four of which are the following 1. Significant coverage 2. Reliable 3. Sources 4. Independent of the subject. I would argue that coverage in all three of the major Canadian newspapers, and coverage in various other sources, pass the significant coverage, reliable and sources tests. You would also be hard pressed to claim that the publications (Toronto Star, Financial Post, The Globe and Mail) are not independent or that the individual reporters, as such, are all not independent.

A second argument is that the articles cited above are ‘press releases’. However it's also claimed that the mentions are in passing. These two claims seem to be at odds with each other. A press release would hardly have passing claims. ‘Passing’ mentions is what you would expect from independent articles written on the subject of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs in Canada and the various programmes in the country, including The Next 36, that are trying to effect change, for the better, on that subject. Best efforts were made to pull all information about the The Next 36 from the articles cited. Only in few small circumstances where information was missing was it pulled from the official website. I would not argue with removing the content in the article that is pulled from the official website if that would help with the decision to keep the article. Example, the lower bound on the investment dollars the ventures received was pulled from their website. The upper bound was cited from the appropriate article.

Not a single press release from The Next 36 was cited. For reference, a list of press releases can be found here: http://www.newswire.ca/en/search?Ntt=The+Next+36

Furthermore, under notable the fifth criterion is presumed. Given that The Next 36 passes the first four tests of notability, at the very least The Next 36 should be included somewhere given its notability. However, while it is affiliated with the Canadian Universities mentioned in the articles cited, it is independent of all of them, so inclusion in one of their university entries would not be appropriate.

Concerning being an SPA. I’ve learned a lot in the last week interacting with fellow editors and administrators in the community and appreciate your patience.

Other misc points: I believe Anulmn is talking about his venture, which was incubated in The Next 36, not as an employee or founder of the The Next 36. Lasso615 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This does not pass WP:GNG at this time. None of the sources establish notability, they are mostly press releases or trivial mentions, failing WP:RS.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As was mentioned before none of the sources are press releases, they are from national papers including Canada's Globe & Mail, Vancouver Sun, National Post, Financial Post and The Toronto Star. Most of the articles sourced are solely on the program, and not mentions of it. The founding patrons of the program are prominent figures in Canadian business and can be linked through other wikipedia pages. This was my first article I have submitted on Wikipedia, and I plan on submitting more, however I felt this was an ideal topic to start on as I am an alumni of the program and felt that since I am independent of the organization I am a viable source.
 * KEEP

I too am learning, and have replaced any of the copy that I took directly from the website, or news articles. I would appreciate any advice to changing the article to keep it up. I would argue that the claim WP:GNG about notability was not researched as the community had already approved the article for its notability as it meets: "Significant coverage" 13 Sources from National Sources.

"Reliable" - Published works in Print and Video. Media available in French and English. Secondary sources noted.

"Sources" - Multiple Sources and Authors from National News Sources.

"Independent of the subject" - Author Independent of the organization.

"Presumed" - No stand alone articles, National News Sources, Canadian University Partnerships.

Thanks for the help so far! Please give feedback!! Samjura (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I see this all as a publicity effort by the founder. I agree the founding patrons of the program are notable; That does not mean every activity of theirs is notable. It remains an insignificant program. Notable scholarship programs of this sort are characterized by notable alumni; this program is too new for that to be used as a criterion, so I suppose the fairest judgment is the frequent "not yet notable" that applies to promotional articles. Let's look at the actual sources in detail, in the sequence used in the article. :

What do we have here that is even worth considering as being substantially about the program: Financial Post Aug 15, and Nov 7. I consider them both PR. There's nothing else that is substantial.  DGG ( talk ) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Globe and Mail. Sept 10 This is not about the program. It's mostly about his classroom skills in teaching one particular class   I would in this case challenge even this g&m sources as based on press releases, on the basis that It reads just like the others, a sign that they all all derived from the pr efforts of the founder of the movement. I note the phrase "best and brightest" that is found in essentially all the sources.
 * 2) Financial Post. July 15. Mostly about encouraging entrepreneurship in general. One paragraph about the program.
 * 3) Canadian Business, Feb 8. almost entirely about Satchu, not the program. Furthermore its not independent journalism: its a interview with Satchu letting him say what he pleases, so it's essentially its a reprint of his own praise about himself.
 * 4) Entrepreneur section of the financial Post. Jun 12, Almost identical to the same author's article in the Financial Post, above. Same problems. This part of the Financial Post is evidently   not an independent responsibly edited newspaper, but a medium for publishing press releases.
 * 5) Financial Post Dec 4. Same author as the Financial Post & Entreprneur articles. . An account of Satchu's teaching, almost identical to the Globe and Mail article. Proof that the two of them are identical press release material.
 * 6) Toronto Star A decent newspaper I have often relied on. The article is about Konrad Listwan-Ciesielsk, with one single sentence about the 36.
 * 7) Financial Post Aug 15. It's about one of the 36's programs. interviewing what the people associated with it say about themselves. good evidence that even a press release cannot claim any actual accomplishments "As for where they all go from here, while some of the founders have graduated from their undergraduate programs others have a year or two to go and some must decide whether to return to school or remain fully involved with their newly formed ventures and “go all-in.”"
 * 8) Globe and Mail Nov 21, 2011 A personal interview with Satchu. One sentence about the 36.
 * 9) Financial Post Nov 7.  PR interview with the program's director.  about the program.
 * 10) Account that a single university has joined from its own newsletter.
 * 11) Account that another single university has joined from a blog,.
 * 12) Account that a single university has joined from its own newsletter.
 * 13) Entrepreneur Nov 21. 3 one sentence mentions.
 * 14) (final unnumbered ref), from a campus newspaper.

Samjura (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Comment" - Would any of these articles have more merit in your eyes? I am just wondering how to make it a stronger submission. The program is over three years old now and is the leading incubator education program in Canada.
 * 1) "Toronto Star" - December 3 2012 - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1296061--many-young-canadians-resorting-to-entrepreneurial-route
 * 2) "Financial Post" - August 20 2012 - http://business.financialpost.com/2012/08/20/why-next-36-matters-for-all-canadian-entrepreneurs/


 * Yes, these are usable sources. I think them sufficient to justify an article. But the article is at this point to promotional to keep as is, full of adjectives of praise, and personal & corporate name dropping (2/3 of it is a list of sponsors), and would therefore need substantial rewriting. The best course would be to withdraw the article or let it be deleted, and start over, avoiding adjectives,  avoiding PR phrases, not stating the goal 3  times over, and including only the 4 good references, plus perhaps one good cite for each university that has joined if there is no listing of them in the good refs.  Looking at this discussion, if I were doing it again, I would have speedy deleted as G11, and given you this advice. AfD can lead to article improvement, but there are better ways to do it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just read through the article and didn't see anything blatantly promotional. It seems to document a national scholarship that many students might want to know about and apply for, and also gives brief background on its origins as a UofT course and the founders that are involved - which seems relevant if they are part of nurturing the successful student participants as they try to build their businesses. I don't usually weigh in on these but I'm just kind of baffled about where the antagonism is coming from.  I work at a university that had 6 students that were included in the Next 36 this year and it was a major accomplishment for us and received a lot of social media and press attention.  This scholarship seems very relevant to both the students that receive it, as well as other students at their schools who express pride that they attend the same school as the recipients (expressed on social media the day the recipients were announced).  Why wouldn't there be a Wikipedia article such as this one documenting what the program is? 99.255.11.148 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Even the nominator agrees that there are enough reliable sources out there to merit inclusion of this subject in this encyclopedia.  I'm not going to bother repeating them, they have been mentioned above and are referenced in the article itself.  The article is promotional, so it needs to be reduced to a stub and re-written with from a neutral point of view.  This is "articles for deletion" here, not "articles for improvement."  Yes, articles are often improved as a result of an AfD, but AfD should not be used as a tool to force article improvement. MisterUnit (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2012 (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.