Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueVine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Some of the delete comments only cited a policy while giving no further analysis, but there is substantial disagreement as to whether the sourcing is significantly in-depth and on the topic of the company. My role as an AFD closer isn't to determine which side is "right", but to establish whether there is merit to each side and gauge the level of support for each side. There is some merit to the delete side. Whether coverage of a company's products counts as coverage of the company, or whether standard news stories about finances count as significant coverage beyond being news, is debatable. The keep side also has merit to their argument since the coverage is at the very least related to the company and non-trivial. I therefore see no consensus for deletion here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueVine

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

BlueVine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creepTalk 23:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I’m in agreement with Scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to WP:NCORP, the vast majority of these sources are not sufficiently independent or reliable, and are analogous to marketing materials published by secondary sources. If this is all there is to go off of, then I'm not seeing a pass. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article creator here. The article meets WP:NCORP. Per a direct reading of that guideline, there is "verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization." The entire article is based on independent, reliable sources. Forbes, Venturebeat, TechCrunch, and various business journals are reliable sources that covered the company, including international coverage in Globes. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtempleton Per WP:ORGCRITE (and a direct application of WP:SIRS), business journals and blogs are not sufficiently independent or reliable as primary sources, especially if they are the only sources that exist. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpdwkouaa: I never include blogs in any of my articles unless it’s for something very non-controversial, but there are none here. If you don’t think business journals should be used as sources, you should start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. They are used in thousands of articles. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is routine coverage that WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There is no WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. Reference 6 is the first reference being close to secondary source and it fails WP:ORGIND as a interview with the founder. Ref, 7, 8 and 9 is monies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Ref 10 is a passing mention, Ref 11 is routine coverage of them expanding. It is primary and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 12 and 13 fail WP:ORGIND. Ref 15 and 16 are Non-RS as Forbes contributors. Ref 17 is a fail as well. It is all routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: I must object to that interpretation of my comment. I have no issue with any of the sources being used in articles. The guidelines I'm referencing simply dictate that they cannot be relied upon alone to verify notability. Above this comment, scope_creep has provided a more in-depth analysis to this end. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpdwkouaa: Nuance is often hard on online pages, but you said the sources were blogs and they’re not. I apologize if I misinterpreted you otherwise. Please feel free to revisit your vote now that I found additional sources that clearly meet WP:NCORP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) whereby *each source* contains deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) also contains "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comnent More coverage added. Please consider WP:BEFORE when nominating and voting, to be respectful of other editors’ time. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. El-Bawab, Nadine (2021-04-30). "Bluevine Business Checking review: Earn 1% APY on your balance". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

      The review notes: "The Bluevine Business Checking Account is a great option for small businesses because of its limited fees, and it accrues interest on your balance up to $100,000. This account is the only one on Select’s list of best business checking accounts that yields interest on your balance."

      The article has an advertiser disclosure: "Select works hard to get you the most reliable information to help you take control of your money. These efforts are supported by an affiliate program, and we may receive a commission from advertising partners. This commission does not influence the opinions, recommendations or placement of any products on our site. Our editorial staff remains independent; opinions expressed here have not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by any third party. ... These relationships do not impact editorial decisions or limit Select's coverage, which is held to the highest journalistic standards."

    2. Payne, Kevin; Foreman, Daphne (2021-05-21). "BlueVine Business Checking Review". Forbes Advisor. Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

      The review notes, "Since BlueVine only offers a single business checking account, you may need accounts at multiple banks to cover all of your business needs. Having all of your bank accounts under one roof is more convenient and may even come with some relationship benefits for opening multiple accounts. That said, with all of its perks and lack of fees, BlueVine Business Checking might be worth the inconvenience." The review discusses Bluevine's other products.

      The article has an editorial note: "Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations." According to https://www.forbes.com/advisor/about-us/, "The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. Our reviews and 'best' rankings are created using strict, published methodologies and are driven solely by the editorial team in concert with industry professionals as needed. Content is informed by in-depth research, independent data gathering, analysis and expert insights." It further notes, "Journalistic integrity is the key to our success. To support our reporting work, our business team (a group separate from our editorial team) reviews our content after it’s written and identifies potential advertising opportunities. That team then secures compensation from some of the brands identified in our content."

    3. Vissers, Jason (2021-06-08). "BlueVine Review". Merchant Maverick. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

      The review notes: "BlueVine, an online lending service, was founded in 2013 after the founder watched his father, a physical therapist, struggle with inconsistent cash flow due to slow payouts by insurance companies. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that BlueVine offers services intended to help merchants overcome cash flow problems. ... BlueVine’s fees can get a little expensive, but despite the potential for high costs, BlueVine offers fantastic and transparent services that are easy to qualify for, convenient, and useful for merchants who struggle with cash flow problems."

    4. Feldman, Amy (2016-01-20). "Startup BlueVine Nabs $40 Million As Once-Stodgy Invoice Financing Becomes The Latest Tech Craze". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

      The article from a Forbes staff writer notes, "BlueVine offers a maximum credit line of $250,000 (up from a previous $150,000), with simple pricing. A big advantage of BlueVine over a traditional factor is that you can choose which invoices you want paid early, and once you have enough cash you can ignore the site."

    5. Levy, Ari (2016-04-26). "Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.

      The article includes quotes from the company's CEO but there is sufficient independently reported content to contribute to notability. The article notes: "BlueVine, founded by Lifshitz in 2013 and based in Palo Alto, got its start in the obscure corner of finance called factoring, where businesses sell their accounts receivable at a discount to a creditor so they can have cash on hand to run operations. The lender makes money off the spread between the discount and the actual value of the invoice, which typically gets paid in 30 to 60 days."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BlueVine to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep. It does have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but the article needs to incorporate more of the relevant information from those sources. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: I’m open to suggestions for information to add that’s missing. I thought I touched all the bases. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've covered all the bases now. I've changed my comment to keep. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I plan to comment at some point later today, on these supposed independent coverage refs. scope_creepTalk 10:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Sources above Cunard has not analysed the sources against the appropriate SNG for companies/organizations, which is WP:NCORP. Here's a review of the references against NCORP requirements which apply stricter adherence to criteria than vanilla GNG. Each reference must meet both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND
  • CNBC reference is a review of a product but the topic of the article is the company. There is no in-depth information provided about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Forbes reference is the same. Its a review of a product and has no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • MerchantMaverick reference is also a review of a product but includes some information on the company. Unfortunately its just a repetition of the information found at the "Why I Started BlueVine" page from the company website. Same description also pops up in other places such as the company's LinkedIn page. There is no other information provided on the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Forbes article is based on an quotations/interview with the CEO. Cunard has highlighted the only sentence in the article that isn't directly attributed but which can be found in Press Releases issued by the company. The absense of meaningful "Independent Content" means it fails WP:ORGIND
  • Second CNBC reference is the best of the lot but it has hardly any "Independent Content" with analysis/opinion/fact checking/investigation. Most of the potential "good bits" are attributed to sources related to the company and what's left are the odd sentence or two at most, fails WP:ORGIND
None of the references meet NCORP. I welcome other people's comment. HighKing++ 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above sourcing analysis - I did a little more cleanup and also improved the sourcing even further. @HighKing:, can you clarify for us that you're saying that a company article shouldn't include product coverage? Understanding your rationale will help the closer decide how strongly to weigh your deletion argument. I addressed above how this meets WP:NCORP, by directly quoting from the guideline. If you'd like to have Inc, Forbes, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Businessweek changed to unreliable on the reliable sources noticeboard, please start a discussion there and ping me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I'm simply looking for sources that meet NCORP. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. But if the topic of an article is about a company, then we need to see references that provide in-depth information on the *company*. A product review reference would be useful for an article on the product. HighKing++ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to come up with similar argument and agree totally with HighKing. These review sites are not really independent, in the only sense that matters. Looking at [1] for example, in the source section, they list Bluevine and Trustpilot reviews as the sites they are source. Looking at one of the CNBC reviews at: [2]. It states on the review, Select’s editorial team independently created this content. Fair enough, it goes on to say that Click here to read our full advertiser disclosure. It states we affiliated with affiliate relationships with American Express, U.S. Bank, Discover, Credit One. So they in partnership with payment gateway providers. They are the industry. So they're reviews are not really independent either. scope_creepTalk 22:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the page at [3] it states: Editorial Note: Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. They are not independent either. On the Bluevine site is states : supported more than 300,000 small businesses' On the review site, it states In 2020 and 2021, BlueVine supported more than 300,000 small businesses. So I think probably good chunks of it have been copy and pasted from Bluevines site. It is no suprise. scope_creepTalk 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup - none of the three sources you identified as a reason to vote delete are there anymore. They weren't necessary - other more reliable publications also covered the info. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails WP:NCORP. Your first reference fails WP:ORGIND. It is based on an interview with the ceo. Ref 2, routine funding annoucements explicitly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third references is based on comments from Eyal Lifshitz, which questions its independence. Ref 4 is routine funding. Ref 5 is a decentish ref but again the question of independence. Ref 6 and 7 are routine funding. Ref 8, 9, 10 are routine news fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 11 of a press-release. scope_creepTalk 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a company making an announcement in a press release, and a government entity (in this case, the Government of Utah) issuing an official statement confirming the terms of a significant deal they struck with the company. Nonetheless, I removed the Utah announcement and replaced it with independent third party coverage of the deal. The sources should be all bulletproof now. I can offer a few other points about your selective interpretation of general notability guidelines. Multiple funding announcements in higher amounts mean that someone with deep pockets spent way more time than you and me to study the company, and its business model, and felt they were notable enough to invest significant money in them. So funding announcements are absolutely a sign of notability. There's an article about this if you'd like to learn more. Unicorn (finance). And while I understand the point you are trying to make about interviews, that they face less journalistic scrutiny, it actually depends on the publication, what is being sourced, and how the sourced content is phrased. If I use a CEO interview with a Forbes staffer as a source and make it clear in the article that the CEO is the source, that should meet most editors' standards of Wikipedia integrity. Lastly, all CEOs don't get interviewed - only the ones that the journalists consider notable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closer - please note the lazy drive by nomination that spiraled out of control, including the shared AfD histories of the delete voters. This is a problem. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, when you can no longer find a reference that meets NCORP, just attack the people who show you why they fail NCORP. Brilliant. Yes, I hope the Closer notices. HighKing++ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I resent that personal attack as a failure of WP:AGF. The article was reviewed at WP:NPP and after reviewing it, I nominated it. We will be commenting more on this when I get back from holiday. scope_creepTalk 07:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is we? Are you ganging up on me? Should I post info about your former ban for targeting? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 08:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly meets WP:NCORP with multiple reliable, independent, significant sources. Scopecreep is just grasping at straws, showing a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's Independent sources and neutrality policies. A publisher's disclosure of their editorial integrity policy and potential conflicts of interest is evidence that their reporting is NOT biased. That being said, even biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Significant coverage about what BlueVine does through reviews of its products is significant coverage about the company. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire source non-independent. The sources have enough independent reporting and analysis to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can point me to where this is stated in NCORP, we'll have to disagree. Coverage about what the products do isn't the same thing as coverage of the company. It is also why NCORP covers both separately, you can have an article where the topic is the company and you can have an article where the topic is the product. On occasion an article will cover both but none of the examples you've provided does so. HighKing++ 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a weeks old account immediately participating in AfD and citing policies that take others months if not years to master. Could this be the “we” that Scopecreep mentions above? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest the FormalDude, who has done exactly 39 Afd's, has little understanding of what constitutes NCORP and is a clear drive by nomination. Timtempleton, I'm glad that your at least trying to understand what the problem is here. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD count is the standard for determining how much weight to assign a vote, you’re welcome to check mine as well. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice deflection, but let's try to stay focused please. Your argument that the sources are somehow not independent is not at all right. Under WP:ORGCRIT, a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I'll break it down for you @Scope creep:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Forbes 1 Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Yes Article is about the founding of BlueVine and its business model. ✔ Yes
Forbes 2 Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Yes Article is entirely about BlueVine and its investor funding. ✔ Yes
CNBC Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news (WP:RSP). Yes Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates. ✔ Yes
Business Insider Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. ? There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:BI. Yes Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates. ? Unknown
Bloomberg Businessweek Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes Bloomberg Businessweek is considered generally reliable for news and business topics (WP:RSP). Yes Mentions BlueVine seven times and significantly describes the subject of the article. ✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 1 Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP). Yes Source talks about the small business loans that BlueVine services. ✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 2 Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP). Yes Source talks about how BlueVine offers small business loans during the pandemic. ✔ Yes
Deseret Yes Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news topics not related to the LDS church (WP:RSP). Yes Multiple mentions and paragraphs about BlueVine, including their opening of offices in the Western U.S. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
—FORMALDUDE (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go through them since you clearly don't known what constitutes independence nor depth means.
Forbes 1 The article states So, I ask Lifshitz, could you team up with one of them? “Yes,” he says. Is that in the works? “I can’t comment on that. We know a lot of the guys at those companies. I think there are opportunities to cooperate.” That is not independent nor in-depth. There is no analysis. There is reporting from what the ceo says directly so it fails WP:ORGIND, as it is not independent from the organisation.
You are not providing any justification other than sighting WP:CORPDEPTH. I fail to see how any of these sources' coverage does not "extend well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." You are incorrectly labeling substantial business journalism as Churnalism, and are completely misrepresenting the coverage as well. For example, Bloomberg Businessweek is an in-depth article on BlueVine:

  • The fintech companies arranged just 15% of PPP loans overall. They include Kabbage and BlueVine Capital, as well as banks and nonbank lenders that work with such companies, including Cross River Bank, Celtic Bank, and Ready Capital.

  • Another borrower in Little Rock, Ark., received almost $2 million from Kabbage Inc. and BlueVine Capital Inc. for businesses that weren’t in good standing with the secretary of state.

  • Kabbage, which had never before processed an SBA loan, surpassed megabanks to become the second-biggest PPP lender by application volume, approving funds for almost 300,000 businesses. (BlueVine and Cross River Bank were also among the program’s top ten lenders by application volume.)

  • One whose application was processed by BlueVine received SBA approval so fast the person wondered if something had gone wrong.

  • A representative for BlueVine says that the servicer rejected as many as 9% of the applications it received because of suspected fraud and that fewer than 2% of the loans receiving funding have raised concerns.

  • BlueVine “conducted advanced fraud-prevention techniques” and tried to “safely support” as many business owners as it could. That “included taking on a potentially larger risk of fraud” than faced by lenders prioritizing only existing customers, a spokesperson says in response to questions.

  • A spokesperson for Ready Capital says it “implemented due diligence measures and complied with SBA directives to expeditiously provide relief to small businesses.” Kabbage and BlueVine also say they took steps to scrutinize applications.

Furthermore, the CNBC article is not 404, it has been archived numerous times, most recently on 27 June, 2021. It also offers in-depth coverage and certainly meets WP:ORGIND.
Neither of the Forbes and WSJ sources, nor of any the others for that matter, are merely passing mentions or trivial subjects. They all go well into describing and discussing in-depth topics about BlueVine. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand NCORP nor seem to care in enforcing it. I don't think you know in-depth means since both the articles you write are fairly lightweight that don't involve any heavy-weight analysis, nor the fact that you have barely taken part in Afd. In-depth doesn't means a 1400 word article, in means 10, 20, 30+ pages of detailed analysis. Nothing that has been offered here is in-depth, they are merely small articles around 1400 words that picks all their information from either the company news portal or the CEO or their spokesman. The CNBC article which I couldn't find states: The latest example: Citigroup just invested in online lender BlueVine. Three months after closing a $40 million financing round led by Menlo Ventures, BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com his company is bringing in additional capital from Citi Ventures, the strategic investing arm of the New York banking giant. Terms aren’t being disclosed. This is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it comes straight from the company. The company hasn't been about long enough for detailed analysis. All the information that is available funding and its operations which are effectively brand new. It is entirely non-notable. And the comments above says it all. They are true passing mentions in a compound news articles that doesn't have enough information on the company to create a full article. It is clear your going for no consensus result. In six months I will renominating if the references are in the same rank condition. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. I'm fine to wait for further consensus. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC coverage comes up fine on my computer. It's confusing when you say you can't find it and then quote from it. If the closer also reads it, they'll see it uses Citigroup's financial backing of BlueVine as a springboard for an in-depth analysis of the company's history and business model. Exactly the sort of coverage we expect to demonstrate notability. The WSJ piece you also say you can't access is an analysis of the PPP fraud incident that involved BlueVine, and it included an interview with a BlueVine executive. Here's a snippet from the article: Hundreds of seemingly eligible borrowers of Bluevine Capital Inc., an online lender that facilitated more than 155,000 loans, had their personal bank accounts frozen after getting their PPP loans deposited there, said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. 155,000 PPP loans is notable. You assert that Business Insider isn't a reliable source, but that's not quite the truth. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says there's no consensus - the closer can see the discussion there. Even with that, the Business Insider piece is a long detailed description of the company, framed around the hiring of its new COO. There are no promotional or otherwise out of place claims that would cause anyone to doubt the reliability of the reporting, unless it was to try to support an increasingly unlikely delete vote. Common sense has to be considered, along with the context of the deletion nomination. In conclusion, the time and effort put into the sourcing analysis above shows that the sources are in-depth and reliable, clearly indicating that the company is notable and meets any reasonable reading and interpretation of WP:NCORP. This should be an easy keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, see the bit of that quote you've included which says "said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal". Can you explain to me who that meets WP:ORGIND? HighKing++ 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, you have stated that said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. So that fails WP:ORGIND as it a not independent of the organisation. It is an interview. The Business Insider reference has an image of the CEO on the opening para. It is no more independent than the one above and fails WP:SIRS, which was explicitly written to take cognizance of the fact that most startups provide interview style info, to reporters in the manner described above. The information is coming from the company, not the news reporter going out and finding the story. The whole cruz of it, is the question of independece. They are not independent. It seems to be how these trade reporting sites work. scope_creepTalk 21:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've twisted yourselves into a forensics pretzel with your arguments, first claiming that a company's notability consideration should exclude product coverage, then trying to argue that sources are unreliable, despite community consensus, and then arguing that interviews are not good sources of info or evidence of notability, as if having an interview in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC is an everyday occurrence for executives. There aren't any better, more efficient ways for the news media to get background info on a private company than interviewing them. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, should Biden fire his press secretary and end his press briefings, which are essentially interviews and press releases wrapped up in a nice tidy package? Any reasonable person would conclude that the executives are on the radar of big media for interviews for the very reason that what they have to say is notable and of interest to readers. Per a direct quote from WP:ORGIND, A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. The coverage is by unrelated people, and the reporting is non-trivial and non-routine, and these publications' editorial standards do not appear to allow self-promotion or product placement, thus neatly satisfying the guideline. It still rankles me that one of the early delete votes above was based on claims that some sources were blogs, and when it was pointed out that there are no blogs, the person took offense, and dug in instead of changing or striking the vote. That was an early sign that this forum is not ideal for changing minds once people have voted (welcome to 2021). Lastly, the photo is of the COO, not the CEO, as it shows in both the source article's title and the photo caption, suggesting a somewhat hasty and cursory review of the sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, now if you can make those same rebuttals while pointing to the relevant sections in WP:NCORP, you might have a point. Both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND are pretty clear on the requirements. Part-quoting ORGIND is disingenuous especially when you leave out and ignore the requirement for "Independendence of the content". You also can't mix-and-match references to build a picture. Each and every reference used to establish notability must meet CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. Everytime you've pointed to a reference, it has been pointed out where that reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. You can rail and shout to the skies about the strictness of NCORP guidelines but that doesn't change them. HighKing++ 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews as the source of information is the antithesis of independence in the domain of organisation reporting, in the context of notabilty here. All software companies, companies, fintech companies that are startups go to extraordinary length to ensure their intellectual property is protected and kept secret. The only stuff they publically report is the financials, everything you see in the these trade papers is coming from somebody in the company, unless there is some kind of scandal or they have made a huge breakthrough in something or they have been going for decades or something else like that; so for the most part, most of these sources are not independent. So even if it coming from the COO, its not independent, it fails ORGIND. Hiring news is routine news. scope_creepTalk 12:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've tortured the poor closers enough. I can't get you to change your minds because you keep moving the goalposts, ignoring word for word readings of the guidelines in favor of your interpretations, and making up things to be proven right. For example, there's no hiring news here. Time to find another time sink. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No,we don't. There is no moving the goalposts. It is the reason that NCORP was created in the first place. Its the same thing we have been talking about since last summer, your inability to use sources that satisfy NCORP. scope_creepTalk 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlueVine&oldid=1031866384"