Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LawnStarter (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steve Quinn (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 20 June 2016 (→LawnStarter: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LawnStarter

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

Non-notable company. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LawnStarter:

    The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

    Note that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines. North America1000 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ "Lawncare Made Easy, Lawnstarter Raises $6 Million Series A". The Huffington Post. 15 June 2015.
    2. ^ "LawnStarter Raises $6M To Become Your "Lawn Care Concierge"". TechCrunch. AOL. 2 June 2015.
    3. ^ Calnan, Christopher (3 June 2015). "Austin online marketplace operator LawnStarter raises funding - Austin Business Journal". Austin Business Journal.
    4. ^ "LawnStarter Raises $6 Million in a Series A Round". SiliconHills.
    5. ^ "LawnStarter Expands to San Antonio and Four Other Markets". SiliconHills.
    6. ^ "LawnStarter Launches in Austin to Simplify Lawn Care for Consumers". SiliconHills.
    7. ^ Calnan, Christopher (1 August 2014). "LawnStarter uses the Web to connect property owners with contractors". Austin Business Journal.
    8. ^ "Austin City Council to vote on 'Fair Chance Hiring' on Thursday". KTBC.
    The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that LawnStarter passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as still questionable for WP:CORP, the Business Journals have been known for being hinted promotional for companies and none of the other listed websites are solidly satisfying anyway, overall this is still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Business Journals are heavily used for starting companies and this is clearly the case with the coverage only being expected for a starting company, there's nothing to suggest there's established solidity yet and therefore should not be kept until there's better available. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the article read like an advertisement? It contains no promotional language, does not extol the benefits or greatness of the company, etc. It is entirely neutrally worded and provides an general overview of the company. North America1000 18:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's just one example: "The company's online and mobile applications enable the booking and paying for of lawn care, with access to services and payments on-the-go." That's not "entirely neutral," it's at best 2/3 PR fluff. "The company offers online and mobile applications" is at most all that's necessary for an encyclopedia—and, frankly, even that is superfluous; so what, in terms of the history and actual encyclopedic notability of the company? "[W]ith access to services and payments 'on the go'" is fluff marketing content whether one realizes/wants to admit it or not; it's entirely unnecessary except to try to convince the reader that the company provides particularly helpful customer service, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed "with access to services and payments on-the-go". The "enable the booking and paying for of lawn care" is about what customers LawnStarter focuses on; I do not consider that part promotional. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local business journals are merely places to publish press releases; OnNo matter how many such press releases there are, it still doesn't establish notability. The other sources are merely about start up funding. Current practice is that such sources do not establish notability, because they ar essentially indiscriminate-they cover any company that gets money and wants to announce it. Furthermore, the article is so highly promotional that it could be deleted or that alone. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent reason for deletion, and the sooner we make that standard practice without having to argue each one of the hundred thousand that inundate us every year , the easier it will be to remove advertisements. Once we become a vehicle for advertisements, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is inaccurate. LawnStarter is based in Austin, Texas. This article from the major metropolitan newspaper The San Diego Union-Tribune is not about startup funding. It compares and contrasts Austin-based LawnStarter with San Diego-based Lawn Love. Example:

    Both companies promise to simplify and speed up the sometimes-arduous task of ordering professional lawn care. Their solutions include tools that generate quick online or mobile quotes, provide service update notifications to customers, encourage reviews, and help route around operational challenges such as traffic or weather. Both also give their lawn-care technicians software to manage customers, scheduling and accounting.

    The article further notes:

    LawnStarter, meanwhile, launched in Austin in June of last year while going through the Techstars startup incubator. The company takes an undisclosed cut of fees, and offers its version of on-demand landscaping in Orlando, Washington D.C. and several cities across Maryland, Texas and Virginia. LawnStarter has raised a total of $7.25 million in funding, most recently closing $6 million to expand to more markets. San Diego is next on deck.

    The upcoming battle between Lawn Love and LawnStarter may be worth watching, particularly if it helps consumers.

    Likewise, this article from the major newspaper The Tennessean provides significant coverage about the subject: Furthermore, the article is not promotional. It merely contains basic information about the company. If you object to any of the content in the article, please explain and I'll fix it.

    Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the San Diego story is a local story--it's a local story about a local company, that mentions its competitors. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not merely "mention" its competitor LawnStarter. It discusses LawnStarter in substantial detail. See the material I quoted above, for example. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

There is no support in the notability guidelines that a regional newspaper like The San Diego Union-Tribune cannot be used to establish notability for a non-local company like LawnStarter if there is a local connection (in this case the competition between Austin-based LawnStarter and San Diego-based Lawn Love.

The San Diego article allows LawnStarter to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says (my bolding), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."

Cunard (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard: Yeah, I stated in the last AfD discussion "that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines", but some appear to ignore this and just read the article headlines, apparently without reading the actual content. So it goes, I suppose. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America1000 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per references above. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, if the above references and content is good enough to defend the article against deletion, then it must be good enough to include in the article. Conversely, if it is not good enough for the article it is not good enough to defend it against deletion. I suggest that the relevant contributor/s above add the referenced content to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the articles cited above are all announcements (press releases) and are not independent reporting of the subject. Announcing an influx of $6 million or even $10 million from investors is not notable. Companies, Corporations, and Startups do this everyday - it is routine. Follow the Silicon Valley companies and see how much funding they recieved in which round last week, yesterday, and today. Lawnstarter app in the app store is not reliable sourcing either (as in the refs). This article is a merely way of using Wikipedia for a promotional platform ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that coverage in the San Diego Tribune is so trivial. How is comparing this product with that product notable? It is trivial advertising and at best it is no par with an advice column - this does not speak for notability. In dealing with the thousands of articles that are using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, this issue wonderfully expressed in this Signpost article [1].
  • Comment the article in the San Diego Tribune reads like a press release. It seems as if both founders or presidents (or whatever) got together and issued a press release. I don't know, but this article is lifted from some sort of press release and appears to have been copied verbatim.
Anyway, this is all venture capital investor speak, complete with mentioning "netting a $6-million cash infusion from backers" (ooh-wowee!), "rake in $74.9 billion in revenue in the U.S. this year" (wowee-so impressive!), "Lawn Love went through Silicon Valley's esteemed Y Combinator startup accelerator program" (what? - what is that? - who knows but it sounds impressive - more investor speak so you don't have to know - just be impressed!!), "raised $1.9 million in seed funding" (that's not that much is it? I mean compared to Unicorns? more venture investor speak), " company...takes home between 10 percent and 15 percent of service fees" (this is sure important to know!) ... and so on. This is all aimed at investors, this is not journalistic or editorial integrity per WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LawnStarter_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=726222294"