Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulip Retail


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Tulip Retail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a long nomination because the article appears to be a carefully designed WP:REFBOMBing.

Ultimatley, it's another article on a startup FinTech firm by an obviously undisclosed paid contributor (this is their only contribution to WP) that provides no info other than details on each of its funding rounds. It appears to exist as an investor relations marketing piece to get around SEC forward looking statement restrictions for when investors Google the company. A single CBC story is not enough to prove notability. My extensive BEFORE found copious additional references but only of the kind above (i.e. trade outlets reporting on funding rounds, etc.). Wolfson5 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * About half of the sources are mentions in market analyst reports by WWD, a business intelligence firm which is not WP:RS and the content of which is WP:ROUTINE. There are also a couple user-generated content such as a Crunchbase directory listing and a Bloomberg directory listing which anyone can submit (having submitted some myself). Then there's one or two tiny trade outlets like pymnts.com which are reporting series funding rounds, which is on the extremely ROUTINE end of things.
 * That leaves two sources. The first is a CBC report which is good and does contribute to WP:N. The second is a Forbes contributor interview, which is not. Even if it weren't a contributor story it is ultimately just a Q&A interview with the company's CEO and is, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - First, I am the person who approved the draft through AfC. If you look at the talk page, I actually made a note of the refbombing, but carefully looked through the references prior to sending to mainspace (also note that deletion should not be used for cleanup). There are Forbes contributor pieces, but the interview is NOT by a contributor, it is by staff. I do not consider interviews for notability but there is a three paragraph introduction that talks in-depth about the company that was satisfactory, especially since it came from a staff writer. Then there is the CBC piece, also noted on the talk page. Just a quick questions though. You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Your reasoning is that this is the creator's only contribution. You also make some strong accusations accusing this company of SEC violations. Can you explain how you know all of this information? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Can you explain how you know all of this information? Sure. It's basically common sense that articles on companies that are patently not notable and in which the author has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia are generally (not always) undisclosed COI editing. Then, spending 10 seconds running the editor's name through Google finds a match to someone in their marketing department. Wolfson5 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, doxxing is not something we do at AfC and it is not part of determining notability. However, what took you 10 seconds has taken me quite a bit more and I still do not see the username of the creator connected to the company. Your weasel words of "patently" and "obvious" along with your heavy handed accusation against the company strays far from WP:AGF. If the nomination is for notability, say so, instead of creating synth around it being about paid editing. Finally, WWD is not a "business intelligence firm." WWD is a Fairchild Media publication with editorial oversight. As such, that now makes at least in-depth references. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand what just happened. So, you asked the question, got the answer, didn't like the answer and then confess an inability to reproduce the "doxxing" of the author but doesn't stop you from making the accusation anyway. Then you completely ignore the original question and the answer you sought, instead taking the opportunity to criticize the language used in the AfD and make accusations of making OOT heavy handed accusations - finishing up with a "correction" that WWD is not a business intelligence firm (despite it being described as such on the WWD website with a tag line of "Access the most trusted news and analysis of the fashion and beauty worlds", not to mention the description in the Women's Wear Daily article. Not to forget your last point that somehow (despite WP:ORGIND specifically stating there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility, you've doubled down on it as a reference. You can probably tell I disagree with your comment in its entirety.  HighKing++ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment was towards the nominator who answered the question, but I checked myself and found the answer to be false. The answer was also condescending as if I shouldn't have even asked. Don't put words in my mouth or assume you know what I am thinking. I am trying to get the answer to a simple question; you are attacking editors because someone has a contrary opinion to yours (something that has been a pattern at AfD). I am tired of the incivility and lack of WP:AGF in Wikipedia and your response above falls within that. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Now back to the content. WWD is not a business intelligence firm as stated by the nominator. It is a fashion journal as has editorial oversight so it is a reliable source. Just because it says it offers "information and intelligence" on its Wikipedia page doesn't mean it is a "business intelligence firm."--CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The Forbes article is labeled as both contributor and staff which I think means it's advertorial. But giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's straight, I'm not seeing that two pieces of RS coverage (one of which is just a Q&A) establish notability. BIG BURLEY 19:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes has three kinds of posts: staff written, brand voice, and contributors. Contributors are actually paid (they used to be volunteers) but the overall editorial control is unclear so I treat them as if there is none. Brand voice is their advertorial pieces which are sponsored and marked as such. The rest is from staff. This looks like it was both staff and contributors which tells me that the story was likely picked up and published after editorial review or it would have simply gone out as a contributor piece. Since it's not marked as paid, I see no reason to regard it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but since it relies entirely on an interview with the founder of the company and data provided by the company (to the point the reproduce the questions and answers), it fails WP:ORGIND anyway and this type of reference is rejected for the purposes of establishing notability.  HighKing++ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Publications rely heavily on information from companies. Journalist don't just wake up in the morning and go knocking on doors looking for a story. The days of Clark Kent and the Daily Planet are over. Journalists rely heavily on PR firms reaching out to them pitching stories. It is then up to them to either engage in Churnalism (basically reprinting the story the company sends them), or providing intellectual information they fact-checked along the way. This is not simply a reprint of an interview. The first few paragraphs meet that threshold since there is editorial oversight we must assume they fact-checked the information unless we have evidence to the contrary. How else is Forbes going to get this information? From another publication? Where is that publication going to get the information? Fact is, it all originates from the company. What it comes down to is the fact-checking. Forbes does so with staff writers. If this were a contributor piece, I would agree with you 100%.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. I think there is notability here. I think the CBC, Forbes and WSJ sources in this article do count to establish notability. (I'm not sure why other contributors to this AfD haven't mentioned the WSJ article?) The Forbes piece has 3 paras written by a Forbes staff member, and an interview with the company founder, which includes some hard questions (like Q: "What kind of results has Toys “R” Us gotten using Tulip? (Answer) Q: "But not enough to keep them out of bankruptcy. What happened?") This Wikipedia article about Tulip Retail does not say much about what the company does - as another editor has said, this article focuses more on funding rounds than what the company provides, but that is a question of article quality rather than notability, and there is more information in the sources.
 * As well as those 3 sources, I find other, earlier sources which indicate that the company founder Ali Asaria is notable himself, eg 'Former Well.Ca Founder Ali Asaria Raises $2.4 Million for New Waterloo Startup' (2013, Betakit) (quote: "Ali Asaria left Well.ca in the winter to relative surprise, but really you kind of knew he was just going to start some other awesome site."); 'BrickBreaker inventor hopes there's riches in the Well.ca' (CBC, 2011)  (quote: "By the time he left [Research in Motion] in 2006, Asaria was credited with a simple little addictive app that's now found on more than 50 million devices — BrickBreaker"); and 'RIM's legacy will be decided by the businesses it spawns' (Financial Post, 2013)  (quote: "Among the so-called RIM Rats is Ali Asaria — a classic type-A, serial entrepreneur. At the age of 31, he already has two successful startups under his belt"). Those articles precede the founding of Tulip Retail, and suggest that Asaria has notability dating back to at least 2011, and warrants his own article. (Well.ca, one of the companies which Asaria founded, does have its own Wikipedia article.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are stricter standards for references that can be used to establish notability. None of the ones you've mentioned above meet those standards since none are considered "intellectually independent'' and therefore fail WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, none of the references meet the WP:NCORP/WP:GNG guidelines for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely refbombing with a slew of routine or self-promotional coverage. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:16, 31 December 2018 (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.