Talk:Basecamp (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Basecamp Classic)
Jump to: navigation, search

moved page to Basecamp (company)[edit]

The company 37signals announced they were changing their name to Basecamp in February 2014. I moved the contents of the wikipage 37signals to a new wikipage Basecamp (company) and changed it to a REDIRECT page to Basecamp (company).

This is great work. Thank you.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Basecamp (software)[edit]

now this article has been wikified, there's not much to it. It seems logical to combine the two articles Rayman60 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But it could be expanded. Comfr (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for the sake of War-zone, Keep this or other corporate article?[edit]

Pardon me If I am violating any policies here. I have to Tag few admins and contributors here to know more and understand this matter. We have been facing this challenge from a long time on Wikipedia. Where people are just trying to make it Facebook, Newspaper, LinkedIn or some directory or blatantly used for Promotions or Press coverage.

  • N.b. Note that the article was retained per the last two AfD discussions that occurred in 2016 and 2017. The first discussion in 2006 closed as no consensus. See the AfD template atop this page for more information. North America1000 12:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • even the whole discussion points was for delete. vote counting happened. you mentioned PC magazine and business insider for notable media sources for building wikipedia article? that great! why we have biased for some articles? somewhere such sources become notable and other places its not. wikipedia does not consider them notable anyway. thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging SoWhy, who closed the recent AfD discussion, regarding the notion of alleged "vote counting" above. The closer can address this better than I can here, since they closed the discussion. North America1000 03:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(pinged) While the amount of keep !votes in fact outweighed the delete !votes, so did their arguments, although I understand that the nominating user might not see it that way. Let's analyze the arguments, shall we? We have some deletion arguments based on the tone and/or intent of the article as it stands and the rest is basically based on the fact that the sources mentioned are not sufficiently independent to use them to establish notability which was a minority viewpoint. There is no hard and fast policy what does or does not constitute independent coverage (WP:IS is only an essay and even that does not provide any such rule) but generally we can assume independent coverage exists if the sources are known to be reliable and having editorial independence, even if they sometimes borrow from company material; after all, lifestyle pieces about some celebrity or other are quite common but that alone does not mean the source is not reliable or independent. Except a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not really fit here, none of those arguing for deletion could point to specific reasons why the sources mentioned were not independent enough to establish notability (just saying "they sound PR-y" does not really count). As such, I saw no policy-based reasons for deletion, resulting in the keep result. Regards SoWhy 07:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

More sources[edit]

North America1000 12:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)