Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoeboxed

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. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeboxed (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)

No evidence of any special notability. National press quotes are mere mentions - nothing substantive.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with "no evidence of any special notability."

Over 800,000 customers in 100 countries^[1] Offices on 3 continents While press quotes on the page are, in fact, mere mentions, the company has received plenty of national press that are full-on articles, like these: Shoeboxed in Forbes Magazine Shoeboxed in TechCrunch Finally, if Shoeboxed isn't "notable" then Wiki pages for similar companies should also be deleted, as these companies have a similar number of customers, press, notoriety, etc as Shoeboxed. Similar to Shoeboxed with Wiki pages; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DocuSign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreshBooks

Unsigned by Rebekahvossthp

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just like the nominator, the only national coverage I found consists of a couple of sentences here and there -- nothing in depth. The references in the article do little to help:
  • The Forbes reference is not to the regular site, but rather to the "contributors" section. More than 2,500 people contribute articles, and are paid based on traffic to their pages. Forbes notes that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Thus, there's no repuation for fact checking, and it's not a reliable source.
  • TechCrunch may be better than the Forbes item, but I'm worried by the site's comment "Information provided by CrunchBase". CrunchBase is like IMDb in that its data is contributed by anyone who registers. A moderator reviews the data, and editors are supposed to keep the data updated, but it still wouldn't qualify as a reliable source.
  • Other sources in the article are no better: blogs, an advertising platform and the previously mentioned CrunchBase. Many references don't even seem to be true references, e.g., "Tobi Walter – COO and Co-Founder of Shoeboxed.com September 9, 2013"; I gather that's a claim that Tobi Walter made a statement on that date, but I'm not going to spend more time trying to track it down.
  • A few references are to reliable sources, but don't show notability. For example, there's reference "A Small Business Made to Seem Bigger The New York Times Zimmerman, Eilene. March 2, 2011" (by the way, it would have been nice to include a link to the online version at [1]). This article mentions Shoeboxed only briefly (in three sentences); that's hardly in-depth coverage. I have the same type of comment for the mashable article (which can be found at [2]): it's a numbered list of 13 items, with Shoeboxed getting two small paragraphs.
  • There's in depth coverage in reference "Review: Shoeboxed vs Receipt Bank and Why They Fall Short. DigitalFirst.com", but I don't think it's a reliable source: it appears to be operated by a single individual. I found it ironic that the review was disparaging (although that doesn't matter). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (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.