Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellowallet

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellowallet

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

This is a new article where the notability of the subject may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. On a News search on Google and Bing there are few hits, and the great majority of those are passing mentions. There are a huge number of references given in the article, but not much substance to many of them. I am not sure whether it should be deleted and am nominating it in order to get a consensus view. Please see the related article Matt Fellowes which comes from the same contributor and has the same issues. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC) David_FLXD (Talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new article; HelloWallet has had a wikipedia page for the past 2+ years. The references in the article come from independent, reliable sources and directly relate to HelloWallet as a company. While I do have a COI, I am open about it and believe I have made responsible edits that are unbiased, factual, and informative. I requested help from editors in IRC groups and consequently edited the article accordingly. ElisabethLesser (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you are quite right, this is not a new article, dating from 14 July 2011. I did not look carefully enough, and was misled by all your contributions being to these two articles. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user David seems suspicious to me. This page has been up for 2.5 years. Why the issue now? And, why is he misrepresenting the facts? There are "64,100" links to this organization in Google, not a "few." And, it has been up for a long time with no objection. Why is he suggesting it has not been? This is suspicious. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography where you will find: "like a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story," This entry takes available data points and constructs a story, like hundreds of other company profiles. If David disagrees with that story, than he can suggest an alternative with other available data points. But, don't make up facts. That is suspicious. I see no reason for deletion. I just did a news search and see that this company is partially owned by Steve Case, and that it was just featured in the Wall Street Journal last Sunday. Although, I guess David's advice would be that biographers should ignore media coverage? I better tell my college history professor to change his curriculum. --ConcernedReader2 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)— ConcernedReader2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In answer to your question, "Why now?" I raised it because I looked at ElisabethLesser's contributions after reviewing Matt Fellowes at AfC. Matt Fellowes was a marginal call on notability, and HelloWallet very similar. With regard to the number of links on a Google search, you're right. There are thousands. Unfortunately, the great majority of them link back to primary sources, such as HelloWallet itself, and are therefore useless for establishing notability. I would agree with you that the Wall Street article last Sunday is indicative of notability, but it is not enough to establish that by itself. As I stated in the introduction above, I felt that this article (and Matt Fellowes) were marginal on notability and nominated both in order to get a community consensus rather than just take a decision myself, which I could also have done. And speaking of misrepresenting the facts, how many months from mid-July 2011 to then end of December 2012? Would it be 17.5 months? How do you make that equal to 2.5 years? I will refrain from challenging your credentials, I don't believe I need to. David_FLXD (Talk) 10:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. It is 17 months and not 30 months. In any case, your argument is again suspicious. Notability is a subjective term, so it is in the eye of the beholder. But, when I think of lack of notability, I think of someone like you or me. I don't think of a company that seems to have been named by ABC News, one of the major US networks, as one of the 5 coolest US start-ups, or a company that seems to be frequently quoted in the top US papers in America. They also seem to have raised millions of dollars, including from one of America's most successful and wealthiest technology leaders, which by itself makes them one of the most notable US young companies. I also don't think of someone who seems to have won a Top 100 GameChanger from Huffington Post along with people like Steve Jobs, has testified in front of the U.S. Congress, and is cited by a US President and one of the most famous politicians in the 21st century. Seriously, you seem to have some kind of ulterior motive here. If you think that the facts have been misrepresented, edit them. But, don't make up facts to justify your points. It is highly suspicious. --ConcernedReader2 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) Unsubstantiated allegations against an editor of "being suspicious", and having an ulterior motive don't belong here. B) Such allegations by an editor with precisely 2 edits, against one with a 4-year history of editing a variety of articles are particularly implausible. If you want to help the case for keeping this article, stick to policy based arguments. Mcewan (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mcewan--let's keep the discussion civil (see WP:CIVIL) and on topic. The sources I found are

Harvard Business Review case study of HelloWallet This looks like a legitimate source from a reliable publisher, but I have only read the abstract, not the paywalled case study
a review at MyBankTracker.com
article at BusinessWeek
article at the Washington Post
another article at the Washington Post
OnWallStreet.com article Looks like a news article, but possibly a blog
article at the Washington Business Journal

All sources except (6) look like secondary in depth sources from reliable publishers. Sources (1) and (3) are of nationwide significance and you could argue that (4) and (5) are, too. There seem to multiple secondary reliable sources for this topic, which suggests that the topic is notable. The article could be made more neutral and the references list could be thinned to just the reliable sources, but these are matters of editing and don't suggest that deletion is needed here. Mark viking (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2013 (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.