Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlexJobs

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. Kurykh (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlexJobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Created by declared COI. Reasonably well balanced/NPOV considering. Still has a promotional feel. Did have some COI issues today, namely with these edits: first and second by an IP - their only 2 contributions.

I do not feel it meets WP:Company or WP:GNG. It has some coverage, however not sufficient in my opinion. It has some coverage - a brief mention on US News here, a very brief mention on WSJ here, reasonable amount of coverage in this article on entrepreneur.com and a brief mention (with link to self-published research) here and a mention in this Forbes list. This on ZDNet feels like an advertorial. Now it can be argued that this is numerous trusted sources, however I feel this is all far too routine for a small company hustling to get its name recognised - I don't think the sum of all of this constitutes 'considerable'. Many, many companies get the occasional mention in the press, have staff drop a soundbite or quote, and perhaps score the odd extended write-up.

Has existed for nearly 2 years and is still an orphan. Additionally I believe this article should be deleted for WP:DIRECTORY reasons.

I appreciate some editors' interpretation of 'significant' is different to mine and this debate will perhaps have keep votes based on the sources above, however for me I do not believe I see the significant coverage needed to satisfy myself of its notability.

Rayman60 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rayman60,

Mike at FlexJobs here. Thank you for listing your concerns. I agree with what you said here regarding how small companies trying to get press coverage and simple mentions are not justified as notable. We were certainly one of those when we started, yet feel we have "graduated" from our humble beginnings 10 years ago. I suppose I tried to cite material from reputable sources when crafting this page to show that. While I of course would like this page to stay up, I want to also make sure we are adding value to your readership and comply with your guidelines. I am not sure if it would help to know that CNN reporters (and many others) come to us looking for leading data on remote and flexible work. In fact, our top 100 list of companies offering the most remote jobs will be released on CNN and Forbes next week. I am open to your feedback and feedback from the other editors on how to comply with your guidelines and welcome a discussion. Thanks for listening and for working with a fairly newby when it comes to Wikipedia editorial guidelines. Trying to be as transparent as possible here :)

Just a quick update about the press I mentioned above. CNN, Forbes and CNBC just covered a story about our Annual top 100 list.

Mike at FlexJobs (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable job cite; content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to promote businesses. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2017 (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.