Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WealthForge

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. Nakon 23:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WealthForge

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

No indication of notability . Refs are one local business journal, and one press release DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. Real company with local recognition and an increasing presence in the crowdfunding industry. Compared to other entries related to crowdfunding, this page has more notability. This also relates to the JOBS Act and financial technology. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes , there are more references. I've read them. Most are references to show specific companies use the services--but these amount to incidental mentions of WealthForge, not substantial references, and do not prove market share; if you can prove it is the most important firm in the industry, that would show notability. You've added an academic reference--but it just includes the company name in a list of 27 companies in the field, without discussing it at all. (The list does show that 17 of those companies entered the business before this one.)

You've kept in such promotional material as "Mat and Fred developed technological solutions, leveraging the web to create new efficiencies and scale for private equity markets. These technologies form the foundation of WealthForge's services, and fit the larger trend of financial services becoming web-based" This says nothing specific, and only a promotional web site would refer to the founders by their first names to give an informal touch--not an encyclopedia.

" local recognition and an increasing presence": "local" is a reason against notability, and increasing presence translates as not yet notable

The JOBS act and financial technology are important, but I don't see how that shows this specific firm is.

on my talk page, you write", Wikipedia already has pages for many similar companies" Yes, we have pages for other crowd funding companies. If they're as promotional as this and prove as little, we need to get rid of them, not add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response You bring up good points. I have tried to keep promotional language to a minimum, but more of it can and should be edited out. I am not associated with the company, nor am I paid or benefiting in any way from this article. I live in Richmond where the company is headquartered and I am a student at the University of Richmond, where the two founders attended school. However, I do not know them and I am not trying to promote the company in this article. Some of the information comes from promotional materials, and I actually cut out much of the promotional language – more needs to be edited out, though. In creating this article I am interested in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the crowdfunding industry, which I think is very important. For example, I find it very interesting that someone can invest in lawsuits through Lexshares, a client of WealthForge.

While WealthForge is not the most important firm in the industry, it is well-known in crowdfunding nationwide, its technology is used by other crowdfunding companies, and its financial services are used by many more. News coverage is a little hard to come by not because it lacks notability, but because of the nature of its work. This is also why some sources mention the company only tangentially. Much of its work is done behind the scenes between companies, but it provides the necessary services for crowdfunding. If we delete WealthForge, Wikipedia would lack a clear explanation of how the crowdfunding industry works, because while we might have crowdfunding websites present on Wikipedia, the company that allows many to actually invest – Wealthforge – would be absent.

Crowdfunding is not done through the more traditional financial institutions, instead, new, small companies like WealthForge provide specialized services for crowdfunding clients. Moreover, while I do think many articles about crowdfunding sites on Wikipedia lack quality, I do not think they should be deleted. If we delete these sites, we lose significant coverage of the crowdfunding industry, who the actors are, and how it works. Since it is also a growing industry, these pages will probably develop much more in the coming years – including WealthForge's page. I should also mention that WealthForge can act as an interesting case in crowdfunding startups, since it started merely as a crowdfunding platform called Fundroom.com, but then transitioned to provide services to the rest of the industry.

This is not my first time editing an article on Wikipedia, but you obviously know much more than me when it comes to the rules and principles of the site, so I look forward to your response and I hope I have been able to change your mind about this page a little bit. Please know that I am not trying to vandalize, nor promote any organization, I am simply aware of the company, found it interesting, and hoped I might add something about. I will certainly try to be more careful about notability in the future, though. When I created the page I did not have it fully planned out, and thought there would be more sources. Then, I scrambled to add things so it would not get deleted. Nevertheless, I do not think we should delete this page. I think it has something to offer, especially if we improve it. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Delete The article is not moving toward meeting Wikipedia's standards with the just added material and cites.

Example: the material supported by the cites to PRNewswire, characterized by its website with Amplify Take your release beyond the basics for better results.
Example: the Reuters cite has this disclaimer at the head Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Example: the HuffingtonPost cite has this mention of WealthForge such as WealthForge.
Example: the WSJ cite may speak to the notability of a client of WealthForge, but is only a passing mention of WealthForge.

These cite failures, in addition to the pervasive promotional tone and PRspeak, indicate, to me, an article aimed a potential client. — Neonorange (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources I saw on the page were press releases - and any company can put those out, really. The article is, indeed, written in a promotional tone, and I'm not convinced that we can get around this problem. I should mention that notability is not necessarily conveyed with a few brief mentions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails to meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. the only substantial discussion that is independent (and the press releases and the U Richmond sources are not independent) is the local newspaper, and that kind of regional notability is not enough for NOTABILITY. the other sources are just passing mentions. not substantial. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (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.