Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notarize (company) (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. The consensus here, after an evaluation of sources, is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notarize (company)[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are profiles, routine annoucments, PR, press-releases, funding news and appointment notices. UPE scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed the sources in the article, and I just do not agree that all of these sources are just WP:ROUTINE garbage. I'm not going to do a complete source analysis, but if anyone looks at these, I think they'll come to the same conclusion. We have a heroes list of sources including NPR, WSJ, NYT, Business Insider and Boston Globe. We have a bunch of other sources that sometimes have press release type coverage, such as Forbes, Fortune, Entrepreneur, BizJournals, TechCrunch. Most of this I could unfortunately see only bits and pieces because of paywalls, but of those I could get into, I saw significant coverage, not routine press releases. Jacona (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there are a lot of articles on newspapers.com. Because of the search engine, there's a lot of false returns for the few good ones, but there are several that looked interesting. I'm out of time for now. — Jacona (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:ORGCRIT, the WP:NCORP guideline is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, and WP:SIRS says Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, so this is a review of sources:

Notaries Are Starting To Put Down The Stamp And Pick Up A Webcam (NPR, 2017) - includes a quote from "Adam Pase, co-founder of Notarize, one of the companies that remotely connects signers and notaries", "Pase, with the company Notarize, says...", and "Pase estimates that Notarize has...". This is not WP:CORPDEPTH because the source is about a general topic where the company is an example of a type of company or product being discussed with quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age (WSJ, 2017) - I can access this article via ProQuest 1927183189 and this also appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an announcement of a a product line launch, with quotes from related parties at Freddie Mac and Notarize and this description of the company: The transaction was made possible by digital technology created by Arlington, Va.-based Notarize, an online notary service, that bridges all necessary parties to the transaction. Other companies have developed similar technology as well as a brief description of the online closing process.
A Will Without Ink and Paper (NYT, 2019) - is about online wills generally, and mentions Trust & Will, an online start-up, helps people create fully digital wills and trust documents in Nevada and Indiana and is ready to roll out its service as other states pass legislation. It has teamed up with Notarize.com, a platform that provides legal virtual notarization for real estate and legal documents and The Notarize platform requires a valid federal ID, which Ms. DiChello said was not enough in addition to quotes from "Patrick Kinsel, chief executive of Notarize", so this also appears to lack WP:CORPDEPTH, and revision appears to be needed to help the article conform to information in the source.
Covid-19 Pandemic Boosts Startups Behind Virtual Showings (WSJ, 2020) is also available via ProQuest 2454373741, and it is not about Notarize, although it mentions: Camber Creek has invested in more than two dozen startups. They include Notarize Inc., a firm that enables home buyers and sellers to use the internet to remotely notarize documents involved in sales, refinancings and other legal matters. In July, when Notarize announced a new $35 million funding round, it said its business had increased 400% since March, when the pandemic was declared which is not WP:CORPDEPTH because this is trivial coverage of an acquisition, capital transaction, and financial results.
For some employees, it’s now ‘Work From Anywhere’ (Boston Globe, 2020) - this is not WP:CORPDEPTH because the brief mentions of the company are Pat Kinsel, CEO of online notary service Notarize, said..., (Notarize saw a 600 percent increase in business as the pandemic caused many people to look for alternatives to in-person services), Some Notarize workers who previously commuted to the Boston have since moved out of Massachusetts ― some only temporarily ― to states such as Indiana, Florida, and New Hampshire and Kinsel said - it is another source presenting the company as an example of a type of company or product being discussed with quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Video shows 'USPS whistleblower' was not alone when swearing to affidavit alleging mail-in ballot fraud (Business Insider, 2020) - this source only mentions the company obliquely, by including a link to the company website in the phrase "online notary service" in That claim was seemingly legitimized by an affidavit that Hopkins signed, obtained through an online notary service, and later cited in litigation by the Trump campaign, so appears to clearly fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
5 software acquisitions Salesforce’s Slack deal could spur (Fortune, 2020) - this is a list of five cloud business toolmakers that may be ripe for the taking with a one-graf description of the company, and revision appears to be needed to help the article conform to this source. Beyond the minimal depth, this also appears to be trivial coverage because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
Next Billion-Dollar Startups: How Notarize Built A $760 Million Business In Online Notaries (Forbes, 2021) - "Nelligan did not respond to requests for comment" and "Kinsel declines to name" in the midst of a source based on Kinsel's quotes detract from the appearance of WP:ORGIND. This source is used in the article to document a non-notable [award] received by the organization.
Notarize raises $130M, tripling valuation on the back of 600% YoY revenue growth (TechCrunch, Mar. 25 2021) - See also Notarize Announces $130M in Funding to Fuel Growth and Fully Digitize Life’s Most Important Transactions (BusinessWire, Mar. 25, 2021) for the same and similar dependent content regurgitated by TechCrunch. This is also trivial coverage because it is an announcement of a capital transaction and annual financial results.
Notarize's Startup Story: A Botched Twitter Stock Transaction and a Broken Leg (BostInno, The Business Journals, 2016) is a product of American City Business Journals which describes itself as ACBJ offers business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers, and the source is based on quotes from Kinsel and "a news release" so it further appears to lack WP:ORGIND, beyond the questionable independence of the publication generally.
Need a Document Notarized? There's an App for That. (Entrepreneur, 2016) - this brief source links to a press release, and is trivial coverage of an announcement of a product line launch.

The remaining sources in the article appear to be of low quality and similarly lack WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability. Some search results are complicated by hits to sources using the word "notarize" but with regard to the company, there appear to be further press releases, announcements, trivial coverage, and low-quality sources. Based on the sources I have reviewed and WP:PROMO, delete seems appropriate for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I was planning to post a source analysis. Excellent work. Happy New Year Beccaynr. I hope you and your family have a great 2023. scope_creep^Talk 00:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete @Beccaynr did an amazing job with source analysis. This is how its done. Happy new year by the way. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I am in agreement with the source analysis above by Beccaynr. None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive source analysis above has been done with several misunderstandings about notability policy. WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which is shown here. Good sources don't get rejected just because someone tries to dissect them by making assumptions about the source of the coverage. If you dislike the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Insider, Boston GLobe and other perennial reliable business sources, you can always bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. This was previously a no consensus and there has only been more coverage of the company since then, including in TechCrunch and Boston Business Journal. Aptshackhouse (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC) — Aptshackhouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No. That is absolutely incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of consensus and policy particularly WP:NCORP. You've completely decided to subvert NCORP for you own needs which breaks the Terms of Use. User is a WP:SPA and a likely COI. Those two references fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine employment news. scope_creep^Talk 09:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some. First, there's a difference between sources used to support facts/information within an article and those used to establish notability. We use NCORP for the latter and it requires a lot more than "significant coverage in reliable sources". Its a strawman argument to say that sources such as WSJ, Forbes, etc are being rejected because they are not reliable sources. Nobody has done that. NCORP also requires "Independent Content" which includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, for example, when I look at the BizJournals link (which is accepted as RS), the second sentence starts by saying "A spokesperson for the online document notarization startup said Monday that the company laid off 60 workers last week". It continues to quote the spokesperson and the CEO as well as quoting from previous company announcements. It has absolutely zero content that meets the "Independent Content" requirement as per WP:ORGIND. That is why this source has been rejected for the purposes of establishing notability and perhaps now you can understand why the others have also failed NCORP criteria as per the analysis above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per source analysis above. Avilich (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH per thorough analysis above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 7 January 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.