Talk:37signals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Redirects & separate articles for individual products

The link to Writeboard ends up in a redirect to this page. If this needs a page (and therefore link) of its own then that should be created and the redirect removed. Otherwise, the link should be removed. Kickstart70 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I've changed the Writeboard, and Ta-Da List links to Writeboard (software) and Ta-Da List (software) respectively. These are just small apps, so I don't think they are notable for article but I agree it seems silly to be redirecting the page you're already. I do not agree with deleting the redirects however. --Jatkins 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The individual apps, Basecamp excepted, barely qualify per WP:N (and I expect that an AFD would vote delete or at best merge). I've removed the redlinks for these two applications, as well as a few others that didn't need to be there like their 37express service or Jeff Bezos's investment company. No need to go around inviting people to create G11-deletable articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I take your point. I made the Backpack and Campfire articles and contributed to Highrise. Do you think they should be merged? After all, they are good but simple apps. --Jatkins 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of those articles rely solely on self-published sources and have no assertion of notability. As of now, any administrator would be in his right to speedy delete each of them. They would need to be sourced properly and convincingly assert separate notability; otherwise they should be merged with this article. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By that I assume you mean that information is directly from 37signals instead of independent blogs or news site (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). If you feel it necessary, add Template:Db-reason or Template:Prod-nn (not notable) and/or merge the articles with 37signals. You've got a good point and unless/untill the apps get much, much more popular, then I agree with you. --Jatkins 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big 37s fan and just getting started on WP but after reading a few of the policies I tend to agree. WP:N (organizations and companies) says:
"If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."
So sounds like a 37signals' Products page and perhaps a more detailed 'Backpack page is in order? Blckdmnd99 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Place the information in this article, which is not a large one, until it becomes necessary and obvious that an encyclopedic treatment requires a subarticle. Backpack has the most attention in the press because Campfire and Highrise are more targeted applications, but it's actually simpler than either of them by a mile. It's the only one of the three I can see enough third-party coverage for a full article, but it's also the one that requires one the least. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That works too. As per WP:N:
"information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Blckdmnd99 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "Products" section, and added information about all of their six products (Basecamp, Ta-Da List, Backpack, Writeboard, Campfire and Highrise). I've redirected/merged Campfire (software) with the 37signals#Products section. I've also uploaded the Highrise logo and placed the 125px-wide logos of all their paid products on the right of the section titles. If you want to, redirect Backpack (software) as well, although you appear to be saying this just needs improving, and that Basecamp (software) should also stay. Because the Highrise (software) article includes pre-launch publicity information such as the trademark name change I thought that should stay put. Its up to you. --Jatkins 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

One issue that came up during the AfD linked above was the people who don't like 37signals and/or their approach. There's certainly room for that to be brought into the article and it would balance out the "press release" sound it now has (after adding things to justify the company's notability). --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• no real controvery here outside the fact that you keep inserting marketing language that should not be present in the article. fine if you a fan, but this is not the place for you to promote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.31.25 (talk • contribs).

The question raised in the AfD was one of notability. Pointing out that they have been successful is not "marketing language", it's asserting notability. (I'm open to other suggestions on how to do so with NPOV.) That said, the article having survived deletion, I don't feel the need to get every last detail of their success in there (I thought it was sufficient before the AfD, but apparently others did not). In the future, it would be helpful and appreciated if you would assume good faith rather than suggesting that someone who disagrees with you about wording is a "fan" or "promoter".

For example, it seems notable to me that they sold 5000+ books with no promotion other than their blog, or that they regularly sell out their seminars. Sometimes the success is part of the story. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:66.72.31.25 appears to be the only objector, and has not responded here after one week, I am restoring the removed material, which are sourced statements about the company which conform to WP:CITE. Given that they come from sources outside Wikipedia and not the opinion of an editor, there should be no reason not to include them. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, but marketing language will not be tolerated. the previous version has been restored. for the record, i did not call you fan, but simply said it's fine if you are one. from your contributions, i do not believe you to be an objective contributor to this article and i will monitor your edits. do not insert inappropriate marketing language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.208.226 (talk • contribs).

This really isn't personal, and here, again, you are labeling my contributions, without assuming good faith. I have not labeled your reverts or your comments here; why do you feel the need to do so? Given that you have ordered me not to "insert inappropriate marketing language", I ask why cited facts should not be included in the article (specifically, book sales, opinions of the company in Salon.com and InformationWeek, the name of their corporate philosophy, and exchanges with other tech CEOs about that philosophy). These facts gauge the importance, notability, and influence of the company. I am open to other wording, but you have not suggested any. I believe that revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia so I will not revert you at this time, but allow you an opportunity to suggest other ways to incorporate information which comes from outside sources per verifiability policy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• there is nothing wrong with facts, but you are cherry picking them and creating nothing more than a fluff piece. one need only review your previous contributions to see you are editing the article in such a way that it makes it read more like a promotional piece -- and i am not the only one to notice. you were told this before by other users within the deletion process discussion forum. one poster commented that "the article reads like a company press release or the back of a book cover" which is not appropriate. 66.73.162.105 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, this little article doesn't deserve this drama, so spare me. I have to assume you're taking such a heavy-handed (and un-Wikipedian) approach because at heart you, too, want the article better. I would like to continue to add things, but I really don't relish writing and getting blanked again. Let's cooperate instead; you tell me what you think is appropriate, beforehand. Here are some of the areas that were in my mind: a separate section on the SvN blog; individual sections on the applications; the APIs and third-party add-ons such as the browser for Campfire; a discussion of the Google Web Accelerator tiff. If criticism is what you want, there were kerfuffles over turning off comments at SvN (because of too many flames, basically), the GWA business (an esoteric web programming standards issue), and the underwhelming response to Writeboard, which arrived at the same time as competitor Writely. If there's anything else about the company you think should be there, but don't feel competent to write yourself, bring it up here and I'll take a crack. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)