Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/ClickUp (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:49, 3 January 2025 editHighKing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers27,850 edits Delete← Previous edit Revision as of 15:51, 3 January 2025 edit undoHighKing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers27,850 edits fmtingNext edit →
Line 196: Line 196:
:<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, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:36, 26 December 2024 (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, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></p>
:*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 {{em|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 ], (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 {{em|all}} cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to ] 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 ], 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): {{tq|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. ] (] • ]) 08:42, 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 {{em|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 ], (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 {{em|all}} cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to ] 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 ], 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): {{tq|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. ] (] • ]) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::As for the other sources from ]: ::*As for the other sources from ]:
*::The ''Inc.'' article {{em|is}} mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of ], but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet ] (see ]: {{tq|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).}}). :::The ''Inc.'' article {{em|is}} mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of ], but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet ] (see ]: {{tq|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. :::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 ] 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 ]. :::The ''Yahoo Finance'' / ''Benzinga'' article is a ] 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 ].
*::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 ] :::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 ]
*::Announcements of {{tq|hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel}} like ''Business Insider'' again falls under ]. :::Announcements of {{tq|hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel}} like ''Business Insider'' again falls under ].
*::For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the ''Business Wire'' and ''PR Newswire'' news releases (], 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. :::For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the ''Business Wire'' and ''PR Newswire'' news releases (], 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 ]. 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. ] (] • ]) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC) :::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 ]. 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. ] (] • ]) 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 ] 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! ] (] • ]) 09:33, 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 ] 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! ] (] • ]) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:<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)

Revision as of 15:51, 3 January 2025

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11.

Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11.

Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09.

Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.

Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11.

Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. 		No The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11. No I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article. Yes
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19. No Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19. No I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11. No Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023. No Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette. No Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese – Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also. No
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews. No Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04. No
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat. No Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19. No This is better than the other ones (e.g. ). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND. –
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19. No I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19. No routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources:

Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7.

Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1. 		No However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

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)

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)
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)

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)

Categories: