Talk:Poplin (company)

Blatant advertising by paid editor

"SudShare charges $1 per pound of laundry, with a $20 minimum per order." "Folding services are included in pricing." "Customers schedule laundry pickup and delivery through an app," " clothes are cleansed, folded, and returned by 8 pm. the following day" may well be sourced but is all just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I've removed the language you've flagged, as well as everything else I could find which seemed potentially WP:PROMO in tone. Please let me know if there's anything else you think could be improved! Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, would you be willing to remove the Template:Paid contributions tag if you believe it to no longer be applicable? I feel like it would probably be a breach of etiquette to remove it myself without consulting you first, as it's possible you may still see the page as being WP:PROMO even after my edits. Apologies for bothering you about all this if I'm messing anything up. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The template will be removed if/when the draft is accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Over the New Year I saw this at AfD and it was on my list but I didn't get round to it. I missed the AfD getting closed until now so rather than immediately AfD it again, I thought I'd put my thoughts here first and invite the author Yitzilitt to comment. I realise the author is a fairly new editor so be aware I'm going to assume that all publishers are reliable sources (incl. The Root) and are independent of the topic company. I'm looking at the sources through the lens of the applicable guideline for companies/organizations which is WP:NCORP and which requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (that's from the ORGIND section of NCORP). In a nutshell that means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. So looking at the references in the article, I don't see anything that meets NCORP as follows:

• From Kolo TV it relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO/Founder, the TV slot plays an advertisement for the company. This fails ORGIND as there's no "Independent Content"
• Fox TV also relies entirely on info from the company, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• Kunr reference in turn references this NNBW article which is what is commonly referred to as a "puff piece". It relies entirely on info provided by the company and CEO, has no "Independent Content" and also fails ORGIND
• ABC article is based entirely on a press release (says it in the article) and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• Chattannoogan article is another puff piece, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• ESPN Sioux Falls has no "Independent Content" and regurgitates info found in this article which relies entirely on info from the company, has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
• This Technical.ly reference is based on an interview (says it in the byline) and is a puff piece with no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND
• The MaineBiz reference is also a puff piece with no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
• This from Food on Demand News is a puff piece with with no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND
• This from iHeart relies on info/announcement with no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND
• The Root reference is difference than the others in that it is chokka full of "Independent Content" (yay!) *but* it has no in-depth information on the company, just the author's experience with the service. Fails CORPDEPTH.
• Alexandria Living Mag reference relies on info from the company, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• Omny.fm reference is an interview with the CEO, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• This from Black Enterprise is the personal experience of a Sudshare worker (not an "unconnected person") with no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH / ORGIND.
• Freight Waves article is a puff piece, relies entirely on info from the company, fails ORGIND
• The next Siouxfalls Business reference is, like the Black Enterprise reference above, an article on the experience of a Sudshare worker and this article fails CCORPDEPTH/ORGIND for the same reasons
• This from Baltimore Sun and this case study are not about the topic company (although mentioned in-passing) but relate to "Dhobi" workers in India. Fails CORPDEPTH
• This from Pymnts only mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from New Pelican relies entirely on info provided by the company, has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND

As you can see from the analysis above, in my opinion none of the references in the article meet NCORP criteria, mostly failing ORGIND but on occasions failing CORPDEPTH. All of the articles are part of a PR push by this new growing company but we've yet to see any independent third party, unconnected with the company, provide any analysis/investigation/opinion with in-depth information on the company. Everything is firmly within the company's "echo chamber" and I have been unable to find anything better. Have I missed something? Is there a reference that meets NCORP or did I miss some "Independent Content" in one of the references above? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Add ping to Yitzilitt (paid) also. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi HighKing, thank you so much for the thoughtful and in-depth analysis! Before going forward I should mention that (despite my username) I am no longer working as a paid editor for SudShare, though of course I still have a conflict of interest as a former employee. Regardless, I would still like to defend the article here, as I believe you may be misinterpreting WP:CORPDEPTH, both here and on other AfDs you've previously reviewed.

I apologize if I'm committing any breach of etiquette by bringing up your past work (as you mentioned, I'm fairly new here and don't always have a great intuition when it comes to online social skills), but I'm bringing it up anyways because you seem to be using a repeated template in many of your deletion discussions. This template seems to be reused in part here, and relies on a very particular reading of CORPDEPTH which may not fully apply to many of the situations in which you use it. In particular, you seem to be discounting a number of explicitly mentioned forms of coverage counted under WP:ORGIND, namely "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking." You quote this yourself, both above and in your standard AfD response template, but follow it up with this sentence:

"In a nutshell that means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc."

This is not quite accurate. You are correct, of course, that self-promotional writing does not count under WP:ORGIND, but I believe it is acceptable for a notable source to rely to some degree on company information, announcements, or interviews, as long as that information is brought up in the course of "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking," and the bulk of the article is not "substantially based on... press releases." For example, a detailed product review (such as the Root article) or critique can count as notable, independent coverage (according to WP:PRODUCTREV), while relying on some amount of information released by the company (such as mentioning cities where the company operates, pricing, etc.), as long as the review itself is original, and not sponsored in any way.

In a similar (but far more important) manner, it would be irresponsible journalism to not give subjects the opportunity to respond to or comment about potentially damaging news items before going to press (you can find this in the codes of ethics for most press organizations; see for example https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp or https://www.npr.org/about-npr/688177789/fairness#fairnessinreportingandinterviewing). As such, almost every article which contains original reporting on a company will, for both legal and ethical reasons, include either a quote from a company representative responding to the news, or will contain a disclaimer along the lines of "company X could not be reached for comment/declined to comment as of publication." For those articles which do contain quotes from company representatives, that should not be taken as an indicator of non-independence, though of course direct quotes themselves should never be used to source potentially controversial statements on-wiki. That does not mean the article as a whole should be dismissed as not meeting WP:NCORP requirements, as I'm concerned you may have done in the past. Outside of the particulars of the SudShare article (where I hope the following is not relevant), it is vitally important that we be able to cover organizations which are primarily notable for controversy, and if your reading was correct, we would be unable to use any high-quality news articles or reviews, being left with sources which either repeat existing news, or do not hold themselves to proper journalistic standards!

I'll respond to this comment with a more specific response to your concerns about the SudShare article in particular, but I wanted to bring this up as a somewhat separate point due to its importance. Apologies if I'm crossing any boundaries here; if you feel like I've overstepped myself or made any mistakes, please let me know :)

Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yitzilitt (paid), you say I'm misinterpreting CORPDEPTH. The "template" answer I provide is a distillation of several years working almost exclusively at company/organization related NCORP-based AfDs so I'm fairly confident in its interpretation. I think you're making a common-enough misinterpretation on that "or" that appears throughout some sections. Look at the lede of the WP:NCORP guideline before interpreting the other sections such as the CORPDEPTH section you mention. The very first sentence of NCORP says:

This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service.

So, if the topic of this article was the product/service then articles such as the review in The Root would likely meet the in-depth "Independent Content" criteria (this appears to be what you suggested at Nomadicghumakkad's Talk page. But the topic of the article is the company (not the service/product) and there's insufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* in that article.

So my first observation is that you are misinterpreting those parts of NCORP where the guidelines say one thing if the topic is a company/organization and then include an or to describe the other things when the topic is a product. We don't mix and match.

You quote a small part of ORGIND to highlight the content that forms the criteria for establishing notability - the last part of that sentence is probably the most important - that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'll return to this in a minute.

There's a couple of red herrings in your argument. I'll summarise and I hope I've captured the gist of your points - you argue that journalists are independent and professional and independent and you imply that in dismissing articles that regurgitate announcements or PR (for the purposes of establishing notability) somehow impugns their work and reputation. You also express concern that if my reading of the guidelines were correct, editors would be unable to use any high-quality news articles of reviews. Your point that "we would be unable to use high-quality news articles or reviews ..." seem that you are misinterpreting the difference between sources that may be used to support the content and factual information within an article - with sources that may be used to establish notability. We hold each to different standards. We don't say that *all* sources must meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, only that multiple sources exist. Once notability has been established, you are free to use whatever WP:RS references you want (with the other policies/guidelines in mind - just not NCORP). Also a "good" journalist might be tasked to faithfully and accurately report on a company announcement. Assuming that the publishing organization is corporately independent and the journalist is likewise independent in that there are no ties between the journalist the the company making the announcement doesn't automatically give the article a pass for the purposes of establishing notability for the simple reason that the *content* of the article might still not contain any "Independent Content". The article might still simply be a rewording of the announcement, followed by selected quotes from the CEO and a standard description from an accompanying PR pack or from the company's website. "Independent Content" requires content that is clearly attributable to a source that isn't affiliated with the topic company.

In summary, while there are excellent high-quality publications which employ professional journalists with integrity and skill to produce entertaining/informative articles, none of that is a "pass" on whether the article itself meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:SIRS says that each reference much meet all the criteria. Your interpretation of NCORP appears inaccurate (based on what you've said here and previously). The purpose for my review of the sources in the article and reasoning why, in each case, they fail NCORP criteria was to allow you the opportunity, if you wish, to discuss which of those sources you believe meets NCORP. If you wish to discuss any particular review above, I'm happy to do so. Based on your response, you may wish to revisit your interpretation of the criteria used to establish notability though. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

HighKing thanks, I think I understand your position much better now, and really appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning here. I still don't fully agree with your interpretation, though I'm not sure if this is the proper place to get into the details of that or not, as that issue is both quite involved and rather tangential. If you know of a better space to discuss this, we might as well move that aspect of the discussion there, though if you'd prefer to keep everything here, I'd be happy to continue discussing it below, of course. For now, I can certainly agree that your argument has at least some merit, so if after defending the specific sources below you still feel like they don't meet NCORP criteria as you understand it, then I wouldn't object to a relisting of the AfD if you so desire (though we probably should try to resolve our differences of understanding first, if possible).

With regards to the details of the sources, I'll try to go through all of them you brought up (and one or two you missed which might be important here):

• I fully agree with you when it comes to the KOLO TV and FOX video sources. They clearly don't meet NCORP criteria, although of course they're still useful when it comes to providing factual information. However, the KOLO TV piece also has a written article below the video at the top of the screen in your original link, which I assume you missed. That written segment could arguably pass NCORP, as it includes some (admittedly light) original reporting, though it is on the shorter, less verbose side, so I wouldn't base an entire article on it or anything. Still, it's worth noting at least.
• Nice catch on the NNBW article, which the KUNR reference does seem to take its information from. Looking at the NNBW article, I wouldn't characterize it as a puff piece though. The journalist who wrote it, Kaleb Roedel, seems to have a very solid journalistic reputation (see this article for example), and the article itself is (to my eyes at least), a genuinely interesting piece of journalism. That being said, I can see why you wouldn't consider it NCORP, since it does seem to rely almost exclusively on an interview with the CEO, with only a few lines in there that seem to have been fact-checked externally (you can tell if it appends an "x says/claims" at the end of an assertion, or if it's simply stated as fact. Note this rule of thumb does not work with less trustworthy journalists/outlets who don't follow industry guidelines, so take with a grain of salt in any given situation).
• 100% agree with you on the ABC article, it's primarily based on a press release and fails CORPDEPTH.
• While it isn't the most incredibly written piece of journalism, I'd say the Chattanoogan article should be fine, and certainly has independent content. It does seem that some later articles used information obtained from that article, but that doesn't nullify that at the time it was written at least, it contained original content.
• The ESPN article does take its factual information from the Sioux Falls article, but it clearly does provide independent content, namely in the form of opinion and (light) analysis. With regards to the Sioux Falls article, I'm not sure why you'd say that article "relies entirely on info from the company, has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND," since they clearly did at least some amount of independent research/fact checking, and talked with a local contractor. Relies too heavily on interview snippets than I'd prefer, and might be a trade publication(?) which is why I didn't cite it directly, though there's nothing wrong with ESPN using it as a source on their end.
• The Technical.ly reference does clearly state in both the byline and the article that an interview with the CEO was conducted, and the bulk of the article does seem to be based on that interview. As such, I agree with you that it would not pass NCORP requirements there. Perhaps this is a bit pedantic of me, but I do however object to your statement that it contains no independent content, as I haven't seen the article's discussion about the importance of time as it relates to the cost of everyday chores anywhere else. I personally found that to be an interesting tidbit, though of course that's quite subjective of me :)
• the MaineBiz article does probably fail ORGIND due to it possibly being a trade magazine (I'm not sure if the definition applies here, since the paper isn't specific to any industry, just local business in general, but I'll assume it is to be safe), but it does contain original reporting about a pitfall of the company's business model, specifically how it avoids covering certain areas due to traffic/transportation issues. I definitely wouldn't call it a "puff piece," though the overall tone is certainly positive. (I notice you call a lot of generally positive coverage of companies "puff pieces," which if we were to define as any article with a positive tone, would lead to the rather absurd result of only being able to cover companies that have experienced controversies of some sort! Apologies for the obvious generalization here, but I'm really not sure what sort of coverage you would accept, considering positive articles you seem to deem as puff pieces, while negative ones will always contain at least an attempt to include a quote from the company. I know I said I wouldn't make this a focus, but I'm really confused how your reading of NCORP works at all. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.)
• See above for the Food On Demand article, though since it's definitely a trade magazine, there's no question it fails ORGIND on that ground.
• Fully agree with you on the iHeart reference; I believe I used it to source some factual information I couldn't find elsewhere, but it shouldn't be included when evaluating NCORP.
• The Root article does talk directly about the company (and its workers and business model) in some depth, not just a plain review of the product it offers. Pretty clearly meets NCORP without issue.
• In your original listing you seem to have missed this Baltimore Sun article, which easily meets NCORP criteria.
• I fully agree with you on the Alexandria Living Mag and Omny.fm reference; fails for exactly the reasons you describe.
• The Black enterprise one is really interesting, and I could absolutely get into a large discussion about if it meets NCORP or not (I believe it does, but can see why that's controversial on my end), but since this reply is as large as it is already, I hope we can simply agree for now that "it's complicated" in regards to this one, and leave it at that, unless it's really pivotal in making some sort of decision on your end.
• I don't currently have access to the Freight Waves article, unfortunately, but I do vaguely remember it having some original reporting. Can't honestly remember/say much more about it without re-reading it.
• The Siouxfalls Business reference does indeed include an interview segment, but I believe it does qualify under CORPDEPTH due to the significant amount of independent analysis in the article. I'd be happy to provide example excerpts if necessary (I had put one here, but deleted it after realizing how long this reply had become).
• I fully agree with you that the Dhobi worker-related articles are not relevant to assessing NCORP.
• Ditto for the Pymnts and New Pelican articles; they're useful as an informational sources, but clearly fail CORPDEPTH.

I hope this reply was helpful, and want to thank you for making me think more deeply about what it means for a given article to pass or fail NCORP, even if we may disagree on some details.

Yours,

Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response Yitzilitt (paid). Let's narrow down what we're discussing here and if we get too bogged down we can take it to one of our Talk pages. For now, I'll focus on the references you claim may pass NCORP in some way and ignore the rest. I'll prefece this response by reminding you that articles must pass all of NCORP, so when you say a reference passes CORPDEPTH we also need to check that it passe ORGIND too (as per WP:SIRS) and vice versa. I'll also add that emphasis is placed on "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic" company so even ex-employees or "sudsters" or partners, etc, are all considered "affiliated".

• You point out that both the FOX News and KOLO TV sources fails NCORP but then go on to point out that the KOLO TV piece also has an article underneath that includes some "original reporting". Perhaps you didn't listen to the video but the article is a word-for-word transcription. So if the video fails as you agree, I don't see how you can claim that a transcription doesn't.
• You point to the reputation of the journalist to argue that the piece isn't a "puff piece". First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces. You appear to agree with the main thrust of my point though but add a caveat that "it does seem to rely almost exclusively on an interview with the CEO". Which parts can you point to that don't rely on information provided inn the interview or by the company? Your point about comments not being attributed, therefore it can be implied that the journalist "fact-checked" what was said fails ORGIND criteria which says "clearly attributable" to a source unconnected with the topic company. If it has no attribution and there is nothing to clearly positively indicate it was fact checked by the journalist (in the middle of a puff piece) then it fails the test.
• The Chattanoogan article is a short puff piece, but a puff piece all the same (follows the same format). It also has no attributed journalist which means it arguably cannot even be considered a reliable source. The information very clearly originated from the company - it includes quotes. Even if the journalist phoned up the company and said "Hey, I'd like to do a piece on you guys", asked a load of questions and jotted down the answers and wrote the article, that still isn't "Independent Content", that's simply regurgitation. Nothing wrong with that kind of article but we don't accept that as establishing notability. Also, there's nothing at all to indicate that any of this is "clearly attributable" to a source unaffiliated with the company. You propose that other articles, written later, used information "obtained" from that article but logically it is much easier explained that what you're seeing is one of the first times that the topic company's "press pack" was deployed (or was in development).
• OK, lets leave the ORGIND concerns with the ESPN Sioux Falls reference aside for a moment - it also fails CORPDEPTH since there is zero in-depth info *about* the company. As for the Sioux Falls reference itself - the entire article uses screenshots from the topic company's ad campaign, embeds a youtube video and gets the rest of the info from one of the SudShare workers/contractors (therefore someone who is "affiliated" with the company). Where on earth is the "Independent Content" that is "clearly attributable", etc? For me, this doesn't even come close to meeting ORGIND. We're still very firmly in the topic company's echo chamber.
• The Technical.ly reference we can agree on, cannot be used to establish notability. Just to pick you up on something here - when I say it has no "Independent Content", I put the phrase in quotes as it is a "Defined Term" and I often extract and show the definition from ORGIND. I do not equate "Independent Content" with independent content. For me, lots of articles have independent content but may not have any content that assists in establishing notability.
• I use the term "puff piece" when considering articles that use the usual tried-and-tested format which I described in an earlier point. Even though this reference mixes up the usual order, it still includes all the relevant parts so its still a puff piece. I suspect (?) you also might (?) look at descriptions of the service as being useful for establishing the notability of the company - they don't, the topic is the company not the product/service. Also, the point about the what you say are the pitfalls of the business model was also clearly part of the interview since the narrative clearly follows the interview quotes. There's nothing here that is "clearly attributable" to an unaffiliated source. Sorry if you're finding the interpretation of NCORP confusing but it is really very simple - find me some in-depth information *about the company* that is "clearly attributable" to an unaffiliated source. If an article, for example, compared this company's business model with a competitors' and highlighted (dis)advantages of one over the other - that's perfectly fine. Of if an article "fact-checked" by saying that the journalist interviewed 300 customers and calculated the average number of missing items as reported by the company was incorrect and therefore the reported revenue lost due to multiple trips for the same job was higher/lower (I'm making this up, hope it made sense), that's great too, that's good "Independent Content". But nothing in here comes close. If you still disagree, highlight any particular paragraph and we'll discuss.
• Which parts of the Roots article contains any information about the *company*. The Sudshare service is introduced in the third where it briefly describes the "service" and the rest of the article, amusingly written, is a customer's description and opinion of their experience with the "service". This article is akin to a customer describing any company's product, be it their experience with, for example, a brand of coffee machine or a test drive in a car. Those types (including this one) fail CORPDEPTH because they provide no in-depth information *on the company* which is the topic. If the service was the topic then this could be used to establish notability of the service. Is this pedantic - absolutely yes, but that's the way the guidelines operate.
• The missing Baltimore Sun reference is ... a puff piece. Follows the usual format. You say it clearly meets NCORP. OK, can you point to any particular paragraph that meets NCORP? So it must contain in-depth info *on the company* and be "clearly attributable" to an unaffiliated source. So, for example, the first part is the usual "history" we've seen before, leading up to the Aha! moment. Then the usual description of the service. Then we switch to info from a worker/contractor (definitely "affiliated"). The we get two short paras quoting from Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marking who says the thinks customers will respond positively to the service (not exactly in-depth info on the company though but its something that perhaps wasn't part of the marketing info although we can't tell for sure, the journalist doesn't say they "reached out" for comment or somethinng), then back for more history focusing mainly on the father, then back to the "wins/successes" part of a puff piece which is really just boiler-plate description, then describing the family (with a photo labelled as a "handout" so part of the marketing pack), then finally a customer-experience piece. You really don't get a much better example of a classic puff piece than that. There's nobody with experience at AfD who'd say that met NCORP.
• The Black Enterprise one really isn't complicated, the information originates from a person who is/was clearly affiliated with the company.
• The Freightways link above "changes" in archive.org (due to a popup) and then isn't valid. Here are working links original and archive. It relies extirely on an interview - even says "Modern Shipper spoke with SudShare founder and CEO Mort Fertel to get the story of the company that’s washing and drying its way to success."
• There's zero "independent analysis" *of the company* (that meets CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND) in the Siouxfalls article - by all means point out the paragraph in question or quote an extract.

I acknowledge it can be difficult to wrap your head around how strict the interpretation of NCORP can be but there's honestly not one single reference in the article that meets NCORP (unless your reply highlights something I overlooked or got wrong). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SudShare home delivery.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: SudShare renamed to Poplin

SudShare has recently been renamed to “Poplin” (see: https://poplin.co/blog/poplin-rebrand and https://apple.news/AIc_QvaFhTC2M-TsdcGRWRg)), and it seems appropriate to change the article name to that. I’m no longer employed (or paid) by the company, but due to my past COI, I don’t feel comfortable editing the article directly. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk · contribs). I've renamed SudShare to Poplin (company), adding the disambiguation because Poplin already exists. Cunard (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)