Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellspace


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wellspace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't find sources that meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP for this, and the sources given in the article don't convey notability. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion: the article is verifiable and original; it is not an advertisement or vanity piece; it is not a hoax; and it is notable - there is sufficient sourcing from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Pando. Wellspace was also named "Top 1,000 Companies Worldwide for Millennial Women” by Mogul in 2018 alongside PepsiCo, Stanley Black & Decker, and CBS. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, "Smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Additionally, "Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." If you believe the article is in bad shape – this can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. As Wikipedia's guidelines state, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." The article can be tagged for attention or tagged as a stub, for example, and improved if needed. Saywrite29 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A tip for effective communication: When you're in a dispute with someone, if you bury anything you say that's on-point in a morass of comments not directed at the issues that were raised, others in the discussion are going to have a hard time figuring out whether you've said anything that addresses whatever issues they did raise. I didn't say anything about verifiability, originality, advertising, vanity, or hoaxes. I didn't say anything about the size of the organization. I didn't say anything about limited interest in the topic. Out of your 200+ words, only about 15 are relevant to my deletion rationale as well as involving a valid consideration, and about 22 are relevant but raise an invalid consideration.
 * The valid consideration is coverage by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Pando, because if those sources have given substantial coverage to Wellspace, then that supports a case for keeping the article. So, let's look at the references to those sources supplied with the article:
 * WSJ: Behind a paywall so I can see only the title and the first two paragraphs. However, given that the article is about HearstLab and states that it has invested in 11 companies, I'm going to suppose that any individual attention given to those 11 companies is "in-passing" and not substantial.
 * NYP: Absolutely no mention of Wellspace, therefore it doesn't contribute to an evaluation of the notability of Wellspace. This reference doesn't even belong in the article because it supports nothing in the article, including the sentence that it annotates, "It has raised money from investors including Hearst." The NYP piece says nothing of the kind.


 * Pando: Absolutely no mention of Wellspace, therefore it doesn't contribute to an evaluation of the notability of Wellspace.
 * The invalid consideration is inclusion on the Mogul "Top 1,000 Companies Worldwide for Millennial Women" list: There are millions of lists of Top N items meeting arbitrary criteria compiled by arbitrary self-appointed list makers all over the place. And, for heaven's sake, this is top 1,000, which hardly singles any of the list's members out as meriting special attention. This is why WP:ORG spells out that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', "fastest growing" or similar lists" is one of many listed "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement".


 * You may be misinterpreting the "last resort" principle as an indication that articles are rarely deleted. That's far from the case. The last resort is called for frequently. Among those cases where it is are those where the topic isn't notable, a condition that cannot be improved by changes or additions to the article.
 * Everything I've said so far aside, it's possible that applicable coverage exists that would lead to a finding of notability. It's just that I didn't find any, and the article supplies none. Largoplazo (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; none of the sources cited are in-depth, and WP:NCORP is fairly clear that list articles constitute trivial mentions or mentions in passing. Half the article's other sources are linkedin links, while others are directly connected to Wellspace. The article also does not inherit notability from its founders, and the article does not make a credible claim to significance for the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Same rationale as SamHolt6 and Largoplazo, I looked for some more sources myself and couldn't find any which would support a claim of notability. Zortwort (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Largplazo and SamHolt6, doesn't meet WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 5 September 2018 (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.