Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy (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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by an editor who ~~is currently the subject of a community ban discussion for undeclared COI editing~~ has since been community banned for undeclared COI editing (link). (updated: Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The article reads as a blatant promotional/marketing piece. I started trying to clean it up, but I have to conclude that every section would need to be removed and restarted. In other words, to turn this into an acceptable article, I think it would need to be deleted so someone else can write a new one from an encyclopedic/NPOV perspective (assuming notability, reliable sources, and all that). I've done a fair bit of copy editing in the past, but I think this one is unsalvageable in its current state.

(For info, this is the revision before I and User:Melcous started removing some puffery) Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've started looking through the long list of sources, and I'm seeing a lot of the same problems with them as in the previous AFD. I'm seeing what are esentially company press releases, trade insider publications (which serve to promote the trade), primary company sources, sources covering e-publishing in general, coverage of individual authors and books, coverage of the demise of traditional publishing, aspirational guidance for new authors, etc. I've checked 20 of the 57 current sources, and not a single one so far is an independent, secondary source, providing in-depth coverage of the subject. So I haven't checked them all, but the article is nowhere near as well sourced as its ref-bombing suggests. Boing! on Tour (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Boing! on Tour. Mommmyy (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Bri has been doing a bit of pruning, and the reference count is now down to 39. So I thought I'd do a quick pass through them. Numbers refer to this revision...

1, 2, 19 = Company's own website content

3, 6, 8, 28, 33 = Press releases or similar, in TechCrunch, online news of high tech and startup companies

4 = Guardian, superficially RS, but see User:Iridescent's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy. To me, it reads like a promotional puff piece.

5 = BBC piece about self-publishing in general, passing mention only

7 = About publishing in general, passing mention only

9 = Telegraph piece about cloud computing, with some blurb from Reedsy itself

10 = Promotional piece in personneltoday.com, primary company source

11 = A general publishing piece, one passing mention by name

12 = General guide to ghostwriting, with one promotional mention

13 = Freelance economy article, with primary content from the company itself

14 = 404, not found

15 = Press release or similar, promotional

16 = Article about publishing startups, one passing mention by name only

17 = Article about layoffs at Macmillan and Tor, written by writers now at Reedsy

18 = Industry insider about who's moved jobs, passing mention of one person who used to be at Reedsy

20 = General article about aspiring authors, with a passing mention

21, 25 = Press release or similar, in publishersweekly, industry publication

22 = Paywalled, but looks like general "How to Finally Write Your Nonfiction Book" article

23 = 404, not found, but title suggests a general howto for writers

24 = List of 7 Self-Publishing Book Resources For Aspiring Authors, Reedsy inclusion reads like marketing blurb

26 = Best software for writers article, includes Reedsy Book Editor

27 = Nine tools every aspiring writer needs to have in 2020 in a PC magazine, mentions Reedsy Book Editor

29 = Press release or similar, in industry magazine

30 = General "I’ve made thousands" clickbait piece, one passing mention by name only

31 = General article about plot generators, includes one by Reedsy

32 = 404, not found, industry mag thebookseller.com

34 = 404, not found, looks like Reedsy primary source

35 = About an author who won the Reedsy Writing Contest

36 = Paywalled, looks like a specific book review

37 = Paywalled, looks like a general article on digital publishing platforms

38 = General piece about publishing startups, passing mention of Reedsy by name only

39 = Restricted viewing, looks like there's a passing mention of Reedsy

I shall leave it to the good folks here to ponder whether this demonstrates that the company "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and satisfies the "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" (per WP:NCORP#Primary criteria, emphasis in original). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever decides to remove Reedsy should consider working on a new page — the company is probably the most legitimate startup in publishing today with close to 4 million in monthly traffic according to Similarweb. It's a vital resource to many authors in the indie community. See testimonials on Reddit: [[1]] It has received funding from the European Union itself: [[2]]. 217.181.229.196 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2022 (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.