Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tines

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. ✗plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tines

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine coverage, PR, monies raised. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a promotional piece. WP:NOTPROMO —siroχo 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would appreciate any feedback on how to make it less promotional while highlighting the aspects that make this company notable. Salsakesh (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No demonstration of notability as this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone back and added further references, could you take a look? Salsakesh (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quantity of references was not the issue. Quality of the references is. There needs to be at least three references that have all three of these qualities: reliable, independent of the topic, and significant coverage of the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of these do you feel is not being met? I strive to include only reliable sources in all articles I write, including this one. Most of the sources included provide significant coverage of the topic. Independence can be somewhat subjective, but I would consider sources such as The Times of London, Irish Times, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WIRED magazine, Security Week, etct to be independent sources. Salsakesh (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a notable Irish tech company in the no-code space with many WP:RS references and coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I will go through the references later. scope_creepTalk 07:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit In addition to the many tech industry sources like this one from VentureBeat (plus the TechCrunch links about their funding rounds), there is this piece by The Irish Times that definitely counts as significant coverage, there is this piece by The Times. Those are both real newspapers not tech industry publications. The article needs significant editing to be less promotional, but there are sufficient sources for meeting the core guidelines of WP:CORP. Steven Walling • talk 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are independent. The Times fail WP:SIRS. They are not idependent of the company. The Irish Times is also not independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH i.e. the "monies raised" clause. Its using company stats. The Venture beat article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH monies raises. Techcrunch is junk ref. Non-rs. There is a reason why these kinds of generic reference no longer are considered value, because they areso generic. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017-2018 by Tony Ballioni and that group specifically to remove these type of generic references. scope_creepTalk 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is extremely bizarre, verging on outright lying, unless you really don't know anything about these sources. The Times and The Irish Times are fully independent news organizations with an editorial staff that produce daily newspapers. They are not trade industry publications or press release factories. The Irish Times is the newspaper of record for Ireland, where the subject of the article is based. The Times is specifically listed as reliable in our list of perennial sources, as is VentureBeat, when covering businesses and technology. Steven Walling • talk 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about. While the papers are indeed listed in the WP:RSP, they take the advertising dollar as much as any other newspaper. Looking at the Time ref. It states "Hinchy describes the experience as “stressful” but it’s one that set the ball rolling for Tines software. “It really helped shape a lot of what we are building in Tines today,” he says. We are allowing... " It goes on. That is an interview with the company founder. He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. WP:SIRS specifically precludes these types of references, because it is not independent from the company. It can't used to prove notability. What is worse is that your a WMF product manager and administrator on this wikipedia and yet you do not understand current Wikipedia policy around organisations particularly WP:NCORP. If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus. This is the 2nd time I've seen you making statements at Afd that are patently false, that don't seem to show an clear understanding of WP:SECONDARY sourcing and what that actually means. The last time was about month ago. I'm going to look at your contribution at Afd over the next few days. scope_creepTalk 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that major newspapers like The Times or The Irish Times publish articles in return for payments like a press release. That's quite simply a baseless conspiracy theory. The consensus view is that newspapers of record are typically some of the most reliable independent sources available, and the coverage here is significant in both cases. Steven Walling • talk 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2], [3]. scope_creepTalk 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those links prove what you just said. One is an ad network, which everyone knows is how newspapers make money and is not the same thing as paid content. The other one is a press release agency. Many journalists get sent press releases every day, but the articles being used as sources here do not include material from any press release. None of those links show that two major newspapers wrote articles in return for payments, direct or indirect. Steven Walling • talk 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a four year old startup. Lets examine the references for the first block.
    Ref 1 [4] This is a non-rs and social media link.
    Ref 2 [5] Has several interview style paragraphs with photographs of the company.
    Ref 3 [6]] Archived at [7] This is an interview with the founder. It is not independent from the business failing WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS SIRS states to establish notability sources must be both Independent and WP:SECONDARY and that each source must be evaluated independently.
    Ref 4 [8] Another interview that predominantely discusses funding failing both WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 5 [9] Profiele style segment in a overall much large article. It discusses comment in the context of no-code development from Hinchy again. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent of the company.
    Ref 6 [10] Another interview. Monies raised. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent as its an interview with the founder and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 7 [11] Its an interview. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND
    Ref 8 [12] Monies raised. From a press-release. Names as a unicorn. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 9 [13] Written by Hinchy himself. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 10 [14] Conference paper. Describes a model no-code security architeture with the information take from [15] Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 11 [16] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage.
    Ref 12 [17] "Your security game plan is only as good as the information you have to work with" says Hinchy. Trade journal. This is not independent.
    Ref 13 [18] Behind a paywall. There is an image of both the founders present which suggests its an interview.
    Ref 14 [19] An X of Y article. Profile. Fails WP:SIRS as its not in-depth.

This is a four year old company who have been described as a unicorn. As its a company growing fast it has a large advertising budget. Branding and advertising are a standard way to build your company. But neither advertising nor growth are factors in notability. Only coverage that passes WP:SIRS and there is not a single reference here that passes that criteria. All the information about this company, comes from the company. None of it WP:SECONDARY. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creepTalk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sources identified by Steven Walling in this discussion appear to be the type of promotional sources that the WP:NCORP guideline seeks to address, as discussed at WP:ORGCRIT:
  • Tines, which helps enterprise security teams automate repetitive workflows, raises $26M (VentureBeat, Apr. 8, 2021) - this is a funding announcement, so it is an example of trivial coverage that has insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability, and the source includes substantial quotes from the cofounder Hinchy, so it appears to fail WP:ORGIND, because this source reads as if a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties.
  • Tines raises $26M Series B for its no-code security automation platform (TechCrunch, Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, but more transparent about churnalism, e.g. "the company notes in today’s announcement," in addition to substantial quotes from Hinchy and attribution to what the "company argues".
  • Irish cybersecurity start-up Tines valued at $300m after raising $26m (The Irish Times, Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, with substantial quotes from Hinchy, and quotes from Mr Fixel, including “We look forward to supporting [Hinchy] and the Tines team as they continue to scale the business and enhance their product which is beloved by their unmatched customer base,” so this also appears insufficient for WP:ORGIND.
Beccaynr (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator and Beccaynr, and I disagree with Steven Walling. Got nothing of substance to add beyond what they've said. —Alalch E. 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this appears to be unfixable promotional content at this time, based on a lack of sufficiently independent and significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Available coverage includes examples of trivial coverage, such as quarterly or annual financial results, capital transaction[s], such as raised capital, non-notable awards received by the organization, and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, while coverage that meets WP:SIRS and could help develop an encyclopedic article has not been identified. Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very clearly WP:PROMOtional and I'm not convinced WP:NCORP is met. The Irish Times article, for instance, is clearly trivial, even if the plublication itself would be okay for other articles. Even if it somehow does pass NCORP WP:TNT is the only solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 29 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tines&oldid=1172951752"