[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (EdTech)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse (EdTech)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Multiverse (EdTech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and also does not satisfy WP:NCORP MickyShy (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - created by an apparently promotional SPA (I asked on their talk page if they were an undisclosed paid editor and they haven't edited since). There's an extensive WP:REFBOMB - but almost all RS sourcing in the article is fundraising rounds (which specifically don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH); almost all other sourcing is RS passing mentions, small trade blogs, press releases and press release churnalism. The total coverage that is independent in-depth RS sourcing is the Wired article on the company under its previous name. I asked in talk what the three best sources clearly demonstrating notability were, no answers as yet - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep- The article as it stands doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH but there is more detailed coverage out there demonstrating notability. From a quick look around, I've added references from the Economist, Times, CNBC etc that do pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd sway towards keeping and improving. 137.220.68.182 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the available references seem to center around successful funding rounds and the fact that one of the founders is Tony Blair's son. None of which help for notable. I doubt the company would be receiving any media attention if it wasn't for the connection to a prominent politician. Since it seems like a pretty run of the mill company otherwise and hasn't even raised that much money in the grand scheme of things. In the meantime, notability isn't inherited. There isn't even an article for Euan Blair at this point. It would be weird to have one for his startup without there even being one for him. Not I think there should be an article on him though, but having one for his company when he's the only thing that makes it at all notable is really putting the cart before the horse. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The CNN source is superficial, the Wired source is just a digested interview, per Adamant1 the other available references don't look much better, half the page is routine fundraising blather... Maybe it's not as dreadful as some, but I can't honestly make a case for why this article should exist, and in those situations where a page will likely degenerate into advertising, we need an affirmative case to keep it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with what Ninetytwoseventeen said. Some good coverage are here: techcrunch.com, fenews.co.uk and recruiter.co.uk. Chelokabob (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TechCrunch coverage is funding rounds, which are specifically not usable for WP:CORPDEPTH, and TechCrunch itself is specifically not usable for notability per WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly there was not a consensus per WP:RSP for Techcrunch not being acceptable, but it says it should be viewed cautiously. Secondly, there are 2 articles on Techcrunch [1] and [2]. They both have several paragraph of info about the company, other than funding info. You would have a good point if the articles were solely about funding. This article is also very good and indepth Wired Chelokabob (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some new info and a citations, including startups.co.uk which ranked them as the top company on their Top 100 startups of 2021, which in itself is notable and Vanity Fair.Chelokabob (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Here are some of the better sources and evaluation. Tell me how they are not acceptable:
1) Startup.co.uk and Startup.co.uk profile - Independent, Significant coverage (2 paragraph + profile page), Reliable source
2) protocal.com - Some quotations, but mostly commentary by the writer. Independent, Significant, Reliable source
3) recruiter.co.uk - Independent, Significant, Reliable source
4) FE News - Independent, Significant, Reliable source
5) Techcrunch Jan 2021 -16 paragraphs of it is about the company that is not about Raising funds or quotation. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source? No Consensus per WP:RSP
6) Techcrunch Sept 2021 - 10 paragraphs of it is not about funding or quotations. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source? No Consensus per WP:RSP
7) times.co.uk Behind paywall, can only see 2 paragraphs but appears in-depth. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
8) CNN - 4 paragraphs of info. - Independent, Significant (medium length), Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
9) Vanity Fair(Italian version) - Independent, Significant, Reliable source (English version on WP:RSP list)
10) WIRED - Independent (Some quotations, but mostly commentary), Significant, Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
11) The Times 2nd article - Independent, Significant (behind pay wall, but enough appears on top to seem significant), Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
- Note about Techcrunch from WP:RSP: "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." Still I believe the 2 articles above or reliable and would not appear that this writer has COI, since she is not a contributing writer. Chelokabob (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, but it would have been more helpful it you'd read WP:NCORP carefully yourself and especially read the definition for "Independent Content" in ORGIND. It is also relatively simple to find the same information/quotes/photos/etc being used across multiple difference publications covering the same topic which is a red-flag that the reference is relying on information provided by the company and (in my experience) likely not to have any "Independent Content".
  • Profile in startups.co.uk contains zero "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. It's simply a regurgitated description of the company, its objectives, funding and key executives without a shred of "in-depth" "*original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The listing in this organization's "Top 100" is meaningless as both the organization and the "award" is non-notable.
  • This in protocol.com is a standard puff piece that relies entirely on information provided by either the company or by individuals connected with the company (such as Marsterston who got a job via the apprentice system or the extensive number of quotes in the article by the CEO). Same photo used in lots of other articles and announcements. There is no "Independent Content" (on the company) and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This from recruiter.co.uk is based entirely on an interview with the CEO and has no "Independent Content", for example the same photo was provided by the company for other articles, fails ORGIND
  • This from fenews.co.uk is a Primary Source as the "attributed journalist" is the company. Fails WP:RS.
  • This first reference from TechCrunch is a puff piece relies entirely on the various announcements and extensive reliance on quotes from the CEO and their lead investor. There are some comments by the journalist on whether the name "Blair" might open some doors but not nearly enough to say that there is sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails ORGIND.
  • The next from TechCrunch relies heavily on this PR announcement of their new funding round and summarises the company's offerings and previous rounds but offers no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
  • This puff piece on the CEO might meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the CEO, but fails the ORGIND section of NCORP since the article relies entirely on the CEO or the company for information on the company.
  • This mention in CNN provides a bland company description and a quote from their vice president and general manager of its North America operations. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This puff piece on the CEO, like the Times puff piece, fails ORGIND for the purposes of establishing the notability of the *company*. Also note where the photos originate.
  • This Wired article is another puff piece that relies entirely on interviews with the founders and information provided by the company. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This digest in The Times contains nothing that isn't found in this announcement by their lead investor or this announcement in recruiter.co.uk, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
There's no doubt the company exists and has been successful in raising capital and has a great marketing department but as of today, none of the articles meet NCORP and it is probably WP:TOOSOON. HighKing++ 12:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiverse_(EdTech)&oldid=1059988402"