Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GigSalad

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 no consensus. Having read through the article, source material, and the analysis of these sources in this discussion, I see that the "delete" side has presented a strong case. The coverage consists mainly of passing mentions and items such as being ranked #682 on a list of "fastest growing companies" appears insignificant. With that said, the validity of the Music Connection source combined with a spattering of mentions in other sources is an argument with merit, and one that has attracted support. The article remains thin, but I cannot see a consensus for deletion based on this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GigSalad (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)

promotional article on non notable firm. The references are primarily press releases, some from extremely unreliable sources like local business journals. Rankings in "rapidly growing" lists are essentially indications of "not yet notable" -- this is especially true for a rank of 682nd. The actual awards are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that "Fast Growing" lists, and not even appearing high on those lists, is usually a pretty good indicator of non-notability. That said, let's do a source review:
  • Music Connection - This is a good notability establishing article. It's a publication with an editorial staff, it's bylined, it's an entire article dedicated to the subject, and it claims that the subject is "the largest" of its kind, which is a claim to notability.
  • Inc.com - As mentioned, being low on a "Fastest Growing" list is a black mark against.
  • Springfield Business Journal - Likewise.
  • Wilmington Business Journal - Local coverage, minor award that ma even be an indicator of non-notability.
  • TechCruch - Reliable source... but barely the scantest of passing mentions.
  • LifeHacker - Blog, with an editorial staff. It's a very well known, large blog. I'm... not sure if this passes our reliability threshold. If it does, this would be a second notability establisher... but I'm just not sure about this one.
  • San Jose Mercury News - Has a brief interview with the subject, but not ABOUT the subject... this article is about Uber, and GigSalad is the business equivalent of "little man on the street" in this article. Does not contribute to notability establishment.
  • Encore Magazine - Good article about the subject, not invalid for adding facts to the article... but this is an expressly local magazine, which does not provide notability establishment.
  • diymusician - A blog. Apparently a blog run by the editor of another publication? But still a blog, apparently without outside editorial review, which alas, means that this cannot be used to establish notability.
• My threshold is two sources establishing notability. We have here one good strong one, and one that I'm not sure counts. Let's see if WP:NEXIST applies... are there any OTHER sources that offer notability? Checking google news...
  • Digital Music News - Good notability establishing article. Is the source reliable? I honestly don't know, and can't tell.
  • MarketingProfs - Paywalled article. I believe this is may be a reliable source, but I can't see the content. That said, the google preview of the content suggests that this MIGHT establish notability? "Much as Uber helps people to find a ride and Airbnb enables travelers to find homes to rent, GigSalad helps people planning events to connect ..."
  • Miami New Times - Reliable source. It's debatable whether this is a passing mention or not. No, the article isn't about gigsalad, but it does express that the writer used gigsalad to make a key point of the article, which implies that the writer finds gigsalad to be notable.
  • The Globe and Mail - Another reliable source, with a similar type of mention. The article isn't about gigsalad, but the author references gigsalad in a way implying notability.
• I'm stopping here. Google news goes on quite a while with many, many such references to gigsalad. I believe that this establishes notability, per WP:NEXIST. Basically, many reliable sources are referencing gigsalad, and we have one reliable source which goes in depth about the subject. I'm going to have to go with a !vote for keep. Enough minor references just add up, in my opinion. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the nominator here is convincing at suggesting the exact concerns here and is emphasizing them better than what the Keep votes is suggesting; this is because it's all essentially PR, something I noticed was unbelievably accepted as there's no actual substance and the "news" is only PR or PR-like (like with other AfDs, this is all expected coverage). What the Keep vote is not mentioning is that there has in fact been consensus repeatedly here at AfD that such coverage is not convincing or substantial, especially not for guaranteeing this is an improvable article. I know I certainly would not have accepted, and I hope the fact it was accepted is not a defense for other articles. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ST, the large sea of minor mentions by reliable sources are not mentioning it as a promotional thing, but as a useful tool that they used as part of their article, or as a mention that "this is the {implied notable} method that {person} did {thing}." And if it were just one or two such mentions, I'd agree that it wouldn't be enough, but the sheer volume of such mentions lends weight. Cumulatively, hundreds of minor mentions, in a non-promotional useful context, add up to smaller number of more substantial mentions. Fieari (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My understanding of notability prior to writing the article is that it can be achieved by a high-profile piece of media (e.g. a profile the New York Times) or many smaller, less prestigious mentions. This is in line with what Fieari suggested in this discussion. For that reason I vote to keep. (Please let me know if, as the submitter, I shouldn't be involving myself here. I wasn't able to find documentation to that effect.)
• If it's a matter of the article needing improvement (removing references to Inc. 5000 and the Springfield Business Journal, incorporating additional sources of notability Fieari discovered), I could do that quite easily. However, in line with WP:NEXIST, I don't believe that's necessary. Mischivin (talk)

First: Simply having one or a few convincing sources or that they are substantial, come from a major news source is not actually always an automatic confirmation of his own article, because then there are the concerns and thoughts of PR, something that is notoriously common with these subjects. Second, actually making claims of "having several trivial or "prestigious" minor mentions combined" is not a confirmation either, everything I have noted here has become a fact as shown by other AfDs closed as Delete. Sinply stating NEXIST defends not considering other sources especially when this would be essential and otherwise needed to not only improve this, but to make it convincingly keepable; saying "that's not necessary" essentially suggests an attempt to not consider the concerns. I specifically listed my concerns here as has the nominator. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. The fact that press releases are currently used as references doesn't mean appropriate references don't exist. I think the combination of coverage listed above, and specifically Digital Music News, makes this company meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- un unremarkable small company going about its business. The article is advertorial in tone, so WP:PROMO applies. The coverage listed above is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, the article from Digital Music News includes this language:

• "GigSalad invested their time in researching payment methods until they found the ideal service. They also altered their banking process to find the best integration for their members. The new service is called Bold Financial Technologies, the same service used by Airbnb, Saucey, and Zirx."

This is clearly very fluffy coverage, and possibly based on a press release y the company. Requirements are more stringent when looking for RS to substantiate notability of the subject, and this clearly misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2016 (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.