Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threadless

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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threadless

Threadless (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website/company. Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. All 'references' are from the website itself. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - A quick google search turns up coverage from Business 2.0 (cnn) [1], Morning Edition (NPR) [2], and a bunch of others. -Chunky Rice 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the references, because they are out there - a quick Google News search turned up several. --Jamoche 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - While I would certainly agree that the article needs better citations than the ones it currently has, and therefore may currently fall afoul of WP:WEB, I strongly disagree that the article fails WP:CORP because it's a notable company that has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources multiple times, which is the primary criterion listed on WP:CORP.
Threadless is not only a notable example of crowdsourcing and as such is mentioned in not only the Wikipedia article on the subject, but also in numerous articles as well as one podcast in BusinessWeek in that or similar contexts (1 2 3 4), as well being either the subject of, or mentioned by articles from the New York Times (1 2 3) , the Chicago Tribune (1 the original page is offline but it was reportedly on the front cover of the CT's magazine), as well as having their founders profiled as part of Chicago Business' "40 under 40" series (1). The company has also been featured aside arguably notable companies such as Muji and Yamaha (as explored in the first linked BusinessWeek article) by an article published in MIT's Sloan Management Review exploring the integration of customers into the design process as way to reduce the risks of new product development (1). --hopkapi 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note that WP:WEB and WP:CORP are guidelines based on the existence of sources, not whether they are already in the article, so doing a Google first can indicate whether an article is a tagging or AFD situation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The references cited mention Threadless as an example. This is not sufficient for WP:CORP, which requires that the company be the subject of the source (this is why the Google Test is no good for demonstrating notability - Google does not distinguish between examples and subjects, yet we must in WP). A source that has crowdsourcing as its subject can be used to demonstrate the notability of crowdsourcing, not of every 25-employee private company mentioned in the the source. UnitedStatesian 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you're misinterpreting "subject" in WP:CORP. The coverage must be non-trivial, but by no means must the subject of the article be the only focus of the coverage. Second, both sources I cited, in fact, are about the company itself. So, either way, I think you're wrong on this one. -Chunky Rice 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yes, a lot (not all) of the references are from the company web site, but I think that's acceptable for claims like 'new shirts are released on Mondays,' and notability is well established by other reliable sources. -- Vary | Talk 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:WEB with the NPR and CNNMoney coverage. Italiavivi 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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.