Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:16, 15 April 2022

Remote (company)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Remote (company) (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)

There's no claim of notability. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The cited sources look like churnalism, with some of them discussed at WP:RSN. A WP:BEFORE search showed the same sort of junk. The author, Husond, hasn't divulged a conflict of interest but this seems an odd choice of article to write after having stopped editing for years. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

While the fact that the account sptrang back to life for this article, it does not mean he has a COI. He could just be a huge fan of the service, etc... When a website is big enough then you will have fans that will do stuff for you.

I would lean towards weak keep if better sourcing can be found, otherwise delete. Rlink2 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep I can't see how this company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It's a $3B valued portfolio company of some of the world's largest private equity and venture capital firms, well covered by reliable sources including Bloomberg. I'm genuinely baffled that this is being nominated for deletion. And yes, I've been inactive for a while - and it was precisely because I noticed that there was no article on this company that I've decided to log back into WP. Húsönd 17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the sources available and hunting around some, I'm concerned that the coverage of this company is almost entirely surrounding the funding rounds it's gone through and not much about it, in and of itself. Like, every reference used in this piece is a story about the $300m funding round, which does lean towards the nom's argument that it's press-release based. Husond, can you pin down sources that are independent of the funding and focused on the company itself? I'd be more inclined to keep if so. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it was mainly the third funding round that created a lot of press about it. I've worked in the venture capital world and when certain companies raise a lot of money that's when they become relevant and carry on to become public etc. Remote's last funding round was quite substantial so a lot of publications reported it and proceeded to explain what the company does. I've just created an overview of the company with some of it. I should mention that I based the article on one of their competitor's (Deel (company)) - which is a similar type of company with similar sources. So I'm a bit surprised this one raised concerns. Húsönd 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    Looking at the Deel page, I'm seeing some sources that dig in deeper than "this company raised X" which is what I'd prefer to see. Matter of fact, this discusses Remote along with Deel, and is the kind of coverage I'd prefer to see here - it's about the company itself, not how much funding it's raised. (eta) This Forbes article from the Deel page gets into Remote as well. Looks like there is material out there that could work. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    • I've found quite a few additional sources that talk about this company without linking it to the round of funding. This one refers to a refugee program the company has launched and which is being used to assist with Ukrainian refugee employment in Portugal. This one from the Business Insider talking about the company's business model. This one from Carnegie Mellon also describing what the company does and mentioning that it's one of only half a dozen "unicorn" companies with Portuguese founders. Plus these mentions on the FT and BBC. Reuters also writes about it but it's linked to the latest round of funding event. Valid sources just pile up, I find it hard to believe this company fails notability criteria. Húsönd 22:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

      I'm definitely leaning towards a keep here if these are all written into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Worklife, BBC, and FT citations all quote one of Remote's co-founders, so I have doubts about independence. Again, this is a hallmark of churnalism. The same is true for the Carnegie piece, which says Remote is an affiliated company, hence not independent. The Reuters piece looks like WP:MILL to me. I'd like to hear from Husond a clear statement if he does or does not have a conflict of interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that you are discounting articles because they quote people involved with the company. That's how journalism works - we interview people, we build articles based around the quotes that they give us. Those all read as articles developed via individual interviews requested by the reporter on specific topics, which to me are entirely suitable. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Most "hits" are about remote work in general, nothing beyond press releases for the company. It's only been around since 2019, so there probably isn't much written ABOUT the company yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  When companies pick a common word as their name it makes it considerably more difficult to find sources specific to them. But they clearly exist - see above. Húsönd 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Clear keep, per the additional sources discussed above by Tony Fox and Husond. That said, I would be inclined to keep already just on the basis of the TechCrunch and Bloomberg News sources already in the article. This company has undoubtedly received particular attention due to the size of its last funding round, but several of the sources (esp. the TechCrunch) delve at least in passing into what the company does, not just the $ raised, and while undoubtedly their authors have relied heavily on press releases, it seems reasonable to assume they exercised usual journalistic independence in doing so. It's worth noting that due to not-infrequent COI/paid-editor issues, new articles about companies often receive extra scrutiny these days. However, that does not mean we should apply stricter criteria on notability and sourcing than we apply for other articles. (I'd actually be tempted to say Speedy Keep, though I note there is an additional delete !vote, though that predates the additional sources found.) Martinp (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting after a couple of days to reflect on discussion since my comment, and in this case reaffirm my keep !vote. In the Chris Troutman/Tony Fox/Husond thread, I respect that "churnalism" (I like the term) is a challenge, but think in this instance Chris has his churnalism meter setting turned up too high. I find Oaktree's Delete unpersuasive: it's not about "most hits", it's whether there are enough needle-in-haystack genuine reliable sources, and it seems there are; and they go well beyond just press releases (though I recognize that exactly how strong a layer of genuine journalistic independent review on top of releases and interviews is open for debate.) Finally, regarding Chris' request, buried in the thread above, for a "clear statement" regarding whether Husond (as article creator) has a COI, I personally think such requests should routinely be answered. However I also recognize that Chris' nomination for deletion here follows very closely rather snarky comments he made on Husond's talk page regarding return to adminship, and so I also respect if Husond feels entitled to just silently ignore what may feel like hounding. Ultimately, I am happy to evaluate the article here on its merits without reference to it. Martinp (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Martinp, I've been quite busy this week so little time to get back to this discussion - but I also intend to update the article with some of the additional sources I found above, so to fully address the concerns on the merits of the initial sources. On the COI clarification demands by the nominator - which I did notice but did not respond - to be honest they do feel to me just as you put it: hounding. Personally I couldn't care less if the creator of a new article has a COI, provided that the article is written in NPOV, the notability of the subject is established, and the content is duly referenced by reliable, independent sources. The nominator and others may think differently of course, and that's absolutely fine, but when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them. I didn't agree with such demands for disclosure when I was more active on WP years ago, and after this episode I don't think I'll change my stance on the matter. Húsönd 22:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Husond: Regarding your assertion, " when it comes to COI disclosure - I believe it should rest strictly within the editor's discretion rather than being forced on them" you'll please note that the Terms of Use legally require disclosure: "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. As you say, you've been gone from Misplaced Pages for some time; these are the sorts of issues a returning editor ought to catch up on. That doesn't square with the fact that the policy changed in June 2014 when you (and I) were actively editing and you would think an admin would know better. Would you now like to revise your prior statements? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, my personal opinion about an editor with COI is a personal one, and it doesn't conflict with our t&c's in any manner. But what I think you don't fully appreciate is that a requirement for an editor to self disclose their COI is not a free pass for other users to demand disclosures. There's so many problems with that, but sadly it's been going on for 15 years and it's obviously a behaviour that is here to stay. Húsönd 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• As noted above, keep on the condition that the new sources be incorporated into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Incorporated now. Húsönd 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I still think some of the refs are iffy and more could be done to improve the article overall, but there's enough here to work with moving forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and I would expect the article to improve going forward. But if kept, at least a small article will exist - and then when someone tries to find where this company is headquartered (which was my case when I first searched for it) then at least they will find out that kind of basic information. Húsönd 10:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Examination of the references:

• Ref 1 Remote raises $300M more, now at a $3B+ valuation] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine "coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital. It comes from a company press-relase.
• Ref 2 Virtual reality headsets for work ‘could snowball’ Three small sentences constitutes a passing mention
• Ref 3 Future of work: how managers are harnessing employees’ hidden skills Genuine but a single paragraph. Its not in depth so fails WP:SIRS
• Ref 4 Remote enters the exclusive list of six Unicorn Companies with Portuguese DNA That is a press-release.
• Ref 5 SoftBank-Backed Startup Remote Nears $3 Billion Value in Funding This comes from a press-release at The wording is exactly the same.
• Ref 6 HR Platform Remote Raises $300M Series C Comes from the same press-release as reference 1.
• Ref 7 This is the same press-release as Ref 6 and Ref 1. The wording is exactly the same.
• Ref 8 This is the sqame press-release as Ref 7, Ref 6, and Ref 1

• • Ref 9 How companies are rushing to offer remote job roles for refugees from Ukraine and other countries in crisis The article uses lots of content from the company website and fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The whole thing is advertising as news article on a advertising website. As information, it low quality crap.

The references are really really poor and I can't understand why everybody is piling with a keep. Ref 1,4,5,6,7,8 are press-releases. Ref 2,3 are bare mentions and are not independent and Ref 9 is junk. scope_creep 23:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note to Admin There was a clear of WP:BLUDGEONing by editor User:Martinp. I removed the comment. scope_creep 06:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't consider Martinp's comment a case of bludgeoning at all, so it clearly isn't "clear". In fact, I found it a perfectly valid response to your concerns. I would recommend restoring it for the sake of civility. Húsönd 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think reverting a (I believe) reasonable response to one's own contribution in a AFD *discussion* should be done only in the most extreme circumstances, so I find scope_creep's reaction bizarre. I trust the closing admin will look at the whole discussion, including my response to scope_creep, which was https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1082594384 That said, I think I've said all I can say in this discussion without repeating my own words, so as I said in the reverted response, I'm bowing out. Martinp (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  User:Scope creep, while I lean toward agreeing with you that the article fails NCORP, removing User:Martinp's comment is not WP:CIVIL behavior. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete Standard-issue churnalist garbage sourced to press releases. And even without the evasiveness above re COI, I'd have figured this was bought and paid for. DoubleCross (‡) 05:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is precisely why demands to disclose COI should not be allowed. They plant seeds in people's minds and influence the outcome of discussions just as much as COI itself influences the outcome of an article. And then they create a fertile ground for this type of nonsense by users with crystal balls and apparently access to my bank account. Húsönd 10:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)*

• Comment This dude here who is a UPE and the other dude who replied earlier, are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole Afd. I'm half-minded to take them to both to AN. scope_creep 13:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates