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.
None of the sources are entirely reliable or independent from the subject. This appears to be WP:VANISPAM, as there's no indication why the company is important or significant. — Timneu22 ·talk16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was mentioned in the New York Times as having 3,500 local service providers in its database. That's 3500 people who may search Wikipedia wanting to know more about it. In addition, it raised $1.1 million in capital in a difficult time for start-ups. This means it will probably grow and become more important to Wikipedia readers. Last, it has excellent web presence. It got a write-up in a second newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger. Last, I do not see how the source New York Times isn't independent or reliable; the newspaper has a history and reputation of reliable reporting, arguably the best reputation in the USA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. The article reads like a press release: SkillSlate’s technology ensures service providers’ pages surface highly in search engine queries, driving greater web visibility for their services and helping more potential customers find them.". There is no indication why this is important or significant. — Timneu22 ·talk16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does too matter. It's important and significant because the New York Times chose to write about it. The New York Times doesn't choose to write about stuff that's unimportant or insignificant. If 3500 people in the database each have 10 to 20 customers. Now we're talking 35,000+ people who may be interested in this; and if it expands nationally like it says, it will be increasingly important to all readers of Wikipedia. A NY Times editor saw impact on tens of thousands of their readers -- a new information source for people needing dogs walked, windows washed, tutoring for kids, as well as a new way for one-person businesses to market themselves, new employment opportunities for NYorkers seeking jobs, a Silicon Valley type business in the Big Apple. And consider that SkillSlate is a competitor to NY Times classified advertising, which suggests again the impartiality of the NY Times. In short, a NY Times editor deemed this story was notable, important, worthy of ink; another newspaper (Newark Star-Ledger) agreed. About the wording -- yes I agree it does sound kind of advertise-y and press-release-y and you're right -- I fixed it..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the article does nothing more than to say "this company exists". I'm not closing the AfD; others will have to chime in. — Timneu22 ·talk18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've never needed to hire a dogwalker, tutor, handyman, DJ, painter, mover? You've never been a dogwalker, tutor, handyman, DJ, painter, mover? I speak from experience -- when I was ten, I was a dogwalker; got paid $3 per walk. Only had one client. Could have used SkillSlate back then to announce my valuable dogwalking services to the whole wide woild. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. This is yet another search engine manipulation business (According to a website description, SkillSlate helps the pages of service providers surface more prominently in search engine queries) using Wikipedia to manipulate search engines. References given are entirely routine announcements of funding or local events that do not come close to meeting the business notability guideline. Article is advertising from beginning to end. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. I don't understand your argument. All businesses including SkillSlate try to get the best web presence they can, whether it's IBM, BMC Software, Exxon. SkillSlate's particular business is matching up small business owners such as tutors or dog walkers with customers. To do this, it seeks to enhance its web presence as well as workers in its database. This is perfectly fine. Your term "manipulation" suggests it is somehow doing this deviously or illegally; it isn't; to make such a claim, you need to prove this. Further, you claim that references are merely "routine announcements"; since when is raising $1.1 million a "routine announcement"? That's a lot of money. Consider the business notability guideline:
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -- Isn't the New York Times the epitome of a reliable independent secondary source? Of course it is. Test satistied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. -- SkillSlate has a strong regional presence in the New York metropolitan area and plans to expand nationally in the next few years. Test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself ... have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Sources ... include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles... -- Again, the NY Times" and "Star-Ledger" are both newspapers. Again, test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a classic case of someone looking into a crystal ball. "Plans to expand nationally" doesn't cut it for notability, and the remaining references are essentially routine announcements in the New York Times. We don't give everyone who ends up in the police blotter an article, nor do we give every single corporation in New York an article; the New York Times and the Star-Ledger have mentioned thousands of these places at various times, and only a small percentage have articles. I'm not seeing any real claim to notability; just being mentioned in the New York Times and the Star-Ledger (and I'm from Connecticut, I'm very familiar with both) doesn't mean it stands out, just that it exists. If this gets kept, we should start putting boxes (with credit to User:Herostratus) that say something like this:
This article about an obscure Internet company in New York may not adequately describe the color of its cubicle walls. Please add this information if you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself doing business there.
Rebuttal. The New York Times isn't a business directory. It doesn't list every firm in New York City. Rather, it publishes stories about only a few hundred firms each year. One of the few firms that editors selected to write about was SkillSlate. The story wasn't a mere "mention" but a solid story about an interesting firm.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't say any of this; it just says that it's an internet business, like all of the other ones. It doesn't explain why it's notable at all. And while the New York Times may not be a directory, they also have to fill their pages with something; this means that they will frequently write on run of the mill organizations, resulting in companies such as this being written about. It doesn't do anything special, nor does it have any distinct features, ipso facto it's not notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the sneering tone of the comment that refers to SkillSlate as an "obscure" company or the snarky "there's no indication why the company is important or significant" beg the questions:
Obscure to whom? and
Important/significant to whom?
I wonder, if SkillSlate were a company that offered a snazzy, high-tech gadget that was excellent in theory but was a bit of a disappointment in practice, would the critics recoil with equivalent horror at its "insignificance?" In fact, SkillSlate is innovative in several ways:
It is hyper-local, which is an emerging area in search--one that has proven elusive to the big players.
SkillSlate concentrates on relatively low-tech services. It is approachable and simple to use. Internet adoption by workers in these fields is historically slower than it is for many higher-tech occupations.
For the most part, people in such occupations have had to rely on word-of-mouth, literal bulletin boards, and the like for marketing. SkillSlate makes marketing online easy and accessible, providing new ways to increase the scope and vigor of their marketing efforts without sacrificing a lot of time during which they need to be out there earning a living.
Non-employer businesses (those with no employees) make up the vast majority of US businesses. Thus, SkillSlate fosters several worthwhile goals.
These include:
Increasing the accessibility and usability of online tools for people from all walks of life;
Bringing the power of the 'net to modestly-paid, independent practitioners (whose jobs cannot be outsourced to distant lands);
Helping those who hire them to support the economy without buying more and more unnecessary 'stuff;'
Helping those who don't know where to find these services to do so without spending person-years leafing through paper publications.
I do not live in New York, but even from the not-so-vast distance of Philadelphia, I can see that this company is something special. Its simple appearance is deceptive in a good sense, because it is clear that a huge amount of thought, planning, and preparation went into its design and implementation. Auroraz7 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to rebuttal. Yes it is a strong argument. Auroraz is explaining why the NY Times considered the SkillSlate story to be notable, and the reasons above (ie hyper-local, low-tech, online marketing etc etc) are valid for the NY Times editors just as it is for us having this discussion. SkillSlate is a notable company. It belongs in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to the various criticisms of my POV on keeping the SkillSlate listing: This is a point of clarification. The reason why I commented on the care with which the SkillSlate business was assembled and presents itself is directly related to the fact that non-employer businesses (this is terminology used by the Census Bureau) make up such a large proportion of all businesses in the US, yet few web-based companies have gone after the segment explicitly and/or have been able to raise outside funding to do so. This make the company distinctive and noteworthy. One more thing: I fail to grasp why you feel compelled to differ with others in such a mocking, disrespectful manner. If you disagree, just disagree. You don't need to put people down, criticize their grasp of the language etc. Your derisive manner reflects poorly on only one person: you. Auroraz7 (talk)
I had a rather congenial discussion with Tomwsulcer on my talkpage about this; the box I made was an attempt at humor (see here for my inspiration), but came off as more abrasive than I intended. How that happened is explained again on my talkpage; I'd rather not go into detail here. As to the second part; the phrase begging the question has a very specific definition, and the way you used it above didn't match the definition. I didn't/don't know if you're familiar with what the formal logical (in the field of logic) definition of begging the question is, so I pointed you to the article on it. It wasn't meant to be insulting, just informative. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 18 November 2010 (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.
