Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeachPitch

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. sufficient consensus after relisting . DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeachPitch

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

Doubtful notability. Promotional article. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Created by a WP:SPA, who has only edited this and the company's founder Aldo de Pape. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP has a relaxed criterion where schools are concerned. Why should it not be for the tools those schools use? I agree, this article is promotional, as is the parallel article about Aldo de Pape (which shares the same editor). Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a school though - it is a commercial for-profit company. -- HighKing 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). -- HighKing 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Suggest template be added to remove promotional material. Company appears to pass the notability test. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Lemme try this again. If subject is judged on the same basis as other startups, then we need to look at the pattern for articles about startups that are accepted; they included less data. The more that is written, the more possible objections there are. At the risk of a standard that can be gamed, I suggest an informal yardstick in addition to WP:RS (a common flaw). Fulfill two out of five, keep. Fail to make two, delete.

Time in business: two years (makes)
Employees: 20 (almost)
Funds invested: $2 million (dunno)
Profitable (probably not)
Products: Two demonstrably new, not improvements or derivative (seems so)

I suggest that the list of investors and founders is not important, even if the article is a WP:COATRACK for them.

The most successful publishers can be found in List of Y Combinator startups. Competing suggestions requested. Rhadow (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that being in business for two years and having 20 employees is enough to establish notability? Do you realise how many local shops, restaurants, car repairers etc. would meet that standard? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 86.17.222.157, it's easy to criticize. Why don't you be creative and suggest something better? Before you respond, test fly your standard against List of Y Combinator startups 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that most of the companies on that list would survive deletion discussions, so they shouldn't be used as a benchmark, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no reason to use different standards for startups from those we use for any other companies, which are described at WP:NCORP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To your point, 86.17.222.157, I'm not suggesting that the subject article be kept based on the list, but rather, the list be reexamined based on the precedent of this decision. Let's face it, the reason editors of promotional material fight so hard is to get prime placement on the top right of the Google search results -- much better than any SEO effort. What, by the way is your suggested threshold? Rhadow (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to get involved in any policy/guideline discussions, but would suggest that at least your proposal for the number of employees needed misses by orders of magnitude. The place to discuss such things with those who do have the time is WP:NCORP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH; $2M in funding is way too small of an investment for this startup to be presumed notable. Was created as part of a walled garden that also included the company's founder (since deleted). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello K.e.coffman -- If the VC can call a buddy at a magazine and get a piece published on her nifty $2 million investment, then we kinda have to call it notable ... unless we adopt a new standard for startups. Rhadow (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% promotional, and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM, as in: "Furthermore, TeachPitch was selected in 2015 to participate in the Accelerator program of the World Innovation Summit for Education, Qatar.[8] In October 2016, TeachPitch was shortlisted on the 2016 Great British Technology Shortlist...!" Etc. In any case, if such content were to be removed there'd be nothing left, for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH sources. Hence I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2017 (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.