Revision as of 15:51, 3 January 2025 editHighKing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers27,850 edits fmting← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:05, 6 January 2025 edit undoNabiresearcher (talk | contribs)6 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p> | ||
* '''Delete''': I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet ]/] criteria for establishing notability. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | * '''Delete''': I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet ]/] criteria for establishing notability. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
* '''Keep''': There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp. | |||
From , , , , , , , , , , , , , and to name a few. | |||
These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases. | |||
But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP. | |||
Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this , which is about the company layoffs. | |||
And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Misplaced Pages. | |||
As I understand Misplaced Pages, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Misplaced Pages is the central point for all information about ClickUp. | |||
Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here. | |||
Since this is the English language Misplaced Pages, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity. |
Revision as of 07:05, 6 January 2025
ClickUp
AfDs for this article:New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- ClickUp (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)
Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.
- There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:
- https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024
- https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees
- https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello
- https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup
- https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work
- https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/
- https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html
- I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.
- Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.
- Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors
- and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US
- But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Misplaced Pages won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Misplaced Pages (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).
- All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Misplaced Pages). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Alpha3031!
- I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D
- But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:
Source URL Reason Inc. https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm. London Loves Business https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/ This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though. Yahoo Finance https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.) Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast. Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10 This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.
- I really hope any of these can help!
- Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Misplaced Pages :D
- Thank you and I hope you have a great day!
- Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources):
responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform.
is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:
- The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself:
a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Misplaced Pages article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).
). - For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.
- The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND
- Announcements of
hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel
like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE. - For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.
- In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Misplaced Pages. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources):
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp.
From San Diego Tribune, San Diego Business Journal, Silicon Angle, Times of San Diego, Fast Company, Fast Company, Ad Week, Crunchbase News, Irish Times, PR Newswire, Forbes (Third Party), Solutions Review, UC Today, and Digital News Asia to name a few.
These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases.
But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the UC Today article as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP.
Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this TechCrunch article, which is about the company layoffs.
And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Misplaced Pages.
As I understand Misplaced Pages, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Misplaced Pages is the central point for all information about ClickUp.
Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here.
Since this is the English language Misplaced Pages, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity.
Categories: