Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of remote companies (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of remote companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason for deletion unclear inclusion criteria for WP:NLIST especially when all companies moved to remote in 2020. Coincindentally, all of the sources are from 2020. previous discussion went against consensus by using presence of "remote work" keyword in 2+ sources to justify creating this unencyclopedic list . बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per बिनोद थारू. An unclear and unnecessary list. It will be quite difficult to expand/maintain this kind of a list. killer bee  04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky. The title itself doesn't appear to meet SALAT, however in practice this list is limited to blue-linked companies with RS, so it does meet WP:SALAT at this time. Perhaps a better title is needed. I also think it might be worth removing the second paragraph ("Benefits of being fully remote are:...") as it doesn't seem necessary or NPOV for such a list. —siro χ o 04:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that it applies to all non-essential companies during the pandemic बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary & unable to be maintained or expanded/minimized. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmaintainable ephemeral attempt to grasp at a changing concept. Companies aren't remote or not. They exist on a continuum between 100% in an offices and buildings and 0% in an office (with no office). If we keep this list, we'll have to decide what to do about a company that has one boss and one admin who work together in one head-office house, but employ 100,000 people world-wide working from their homes. Is it truly remote? It does have an office and an office-worker! What actual ratio of home-workers to office-workers do you need to pass the threshold? In future, most companies are going to live somewhere along that continuum, and merely classifying one group based on their being at an extreme end is unhelpful to our readers, hard to do, likely to be wrong a lot of the time, or very subjective (because every source-writer will have a different threshold). And what are we going to do about all notable companies where no reliable source has actually assessed whether they're remote or not? All the sources that I checked treat remoteness as a novelty. It won't be a novelty for much longer, so the sourcing is going to dry up. Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria of the list is also dubious. Dympies (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2023 (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.