Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination)

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.

The result was no consensus. Opinion here is quite divided regarding the sources that cover the company, with a general disagreement regarding source validity relative to

WP:RS. This discussion has received plenty of input, but no consensus for a particular action has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Forever (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no improvement from last AfD. Only coverage is found for this one is local newspaper. it is not enough to establish Wiki Standard. Nominating again for Speedy delete this time. Light2021 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining the articles listed above are in fact advertorials in that one of them says the business "guards your memories!", entirely PR, the next one then is a few paragraphs but it noticeably contains interviewed information and also company information, whereas the other is a clear interview with the CEO, overall clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in
reliable sources
.
1. Talati, Sonia (2016-01-08). "The Latest in Family Photo Storage".
  Barron's. Archived from the original
  on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Downside? Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming. The photo-uploading process was completed after several minutes, longer than it takes on other online storage services we’ve tried. Forever’s management says that’s because the cloud stores its photos in uncompressed file formats, which preserve the original resolution and quality of the photos. The firm is aware of the slow upload issue, however, and says it is working on speeding up the service. It better have if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts.
2. Shamus, Kristen Jordan (2016-01-30). "Forever CEO is in the business of saving memories". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Founder and CEO of Forever, entrepreneur Glen Meakem, took a chance in 2012 with a start-up that had the potential to revolutionize the way people store their most personal data — their family photos, videos, memories — ultimately, their legacies.
  His idea was to create a secure, reliable online cloud-based storage system that would keep a user's photos, documents, videos and more accessible for a lifetime, plus 100 years, to ensure future generations could access them as well.
  ...
  What's unique about Forever is that it not only has the lifetime plus 100-year guarantee, but it also promises to upgrade what its customers save to the latest technology, so it'll be accessible no matter what format is popular or current at a particular time in history.
3. Todd, Deborah M. (2014-01-15). "Forever.com guards personal memories from prying eyes". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  One year after social media archives site forever.com was launched with plans to corner the long-term digital storage market, a secondary goal of guarding personal memories from prying eyes has taken center stage.
  Part digital family album and part time capsule, Forever targets mature audiences seeking to share and maintain family histories. Ancestral photos, marriage licenses and senior graduation pictures can be uploaded to the site and, before the year is out, audio and video streams also will be able to be saved.
  ...
  The cloud-based social sharing site founded last December by Meakem Becker Venture Capital co-founder Glen Meakem has already reached financial and statistical milestones hard to come by for breakout companies.
  Six months after its May 2012 founding, the company closed a $9 million round of Series A financing funded at least partially through Meakem Becker. One month later, it opened for business in a gleaming Downtown office space on the 20th floor of One PPG Place.
4. Togneri, Chris (2015-09-26). "Downtown-based Forever.com promises to preserve photos, files 100 years beyond death". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Forever started in 2012 and reported revenue of $827,000 last year. Projected revenue for 2015 is more than $3 million, with Meakem anticipating “very rapid growth” within years.
  After a low-profile start, Forever rolled out new features last week, including a website redesign and an app that allows customers to design and print special products. Forever has 30,000 active users and expects to reach 50,000 by year's end, Meakem said.
  ...
  That said, questions remain.
  David Thaw, an information security expert at Pitt's School of Law, said the 100-year guarantee is not ironclad.
  “From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.”
  Meakem's response: Even if Forever fails, clients' accounts will be safe.
  The Forever Guarantee Fund — established with an initial $1 million investment from Forever, plus ongoing contributions from new transactions — is separate from Forever, he said.
5. Flynt, Jeff (2016-03-09). "Forever Expands Suamico Location to Meet Growing Demand". WTAQ. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Forever guarantees customers who buy “permanent sharable storage” that their photos and memories will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years with the goal of many generations beyond.
  The company can make this guarantee because a large portion of the money customers pay for “permanent storage” is deposited into the Forever Guarantee Fund, a restricted fund that acts like a permanent endowment or reserve, with earnings paying for storage, bandwidth, and migration to new file formats for generations into the future.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Forever to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The subject is covered in two nonlocal publications:
Barron's and Detroit Free Press.
The article is neutrally written and well sourced. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I've examined the sources you've cited above. Sources must follow the criteria in

WP:RS

which states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Further, sources should be intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Here's my comments on the sources you've listed.

. Article from "Penta Daily" fails as it is clearly a promotional piece and carries quotes from both the founder, Meakem, and the company itself. It is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in
WP:RS
.
. Article from "Detroit Free Press" fails since it is also clearly a promotional piece and is essentially a question and answer interview with Meakem, with photos. It is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in
WP:RS
.
. Article from "Pittsburgh Post Gazette" fails for the same reasons. It is promotional and relies on quotes from the company and from the founder, Meakem, along with a photo of Meakem. Like the other articles above, it is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in
WP:RS
.
. Article from the Pittsburgh Tribute" fails for the exact same reasons as the others. It is promotional and relies on quotes from the company and from the founder, Meakem, along with a photo of Meakem taken for the article. Like the other articles above, it is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in
WP:RS
.
. Article from "WTAQ" fails for very similar reasons. It is an interview with Meakem and is therefore a PRIMARY source and is not independent. It fails the criteria in
WP:RS
.

I've also examined the sources in the article and the exact same pattern emerges. None of the sources are independent. Please be aware that sources must be independent - criteria can be found at

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Article from "Penta Daily" fails as it is clearly a promotional piece and carries quotes from both the founder, Meakem, and the company itself. – that the article contains quotes from the founder and the company does not make it a primary source or a promotional piece. It is good journalistic practice for journalists to seek comment from the subjects of their pieces.
The article contains a "downsides" paragraph that notes "Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming." A promotional piece would not include this critique.
That the articles contain photos of the founder does not make the articles promotional. If that were the case, Wikipedia would be considered promotional merely because it frequently displays photos of article subjects.
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the article contains quotes from the founder and the company does not make it a primary source or a promotional piece. For the purposes of Wikipedia and the criteria set out in
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging
Anupmehra (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) closing admin: Euryalus (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Canvassing note: Light2021 canvassed on the article's talk page:
I have renominated it for AfD. because of no improvement from last time. SwisterTwister , K.e.coffman, DGG , Lemongirl942. Light2021 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad-faith nomination of an article that was listed by the same user four months ago (a user who was
WP:RS, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Detroit Free Press, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment Actually the opposite is true. None of the sources you've mentioned meet
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment and analysis - As I still confirm my delete above, given how this is still a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a business listing: Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience, Forever guarantees customers who buy “permanent sharable storage” that their photos and memories will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years with the goal of many generations beyond....The company can make this guarantee because a large portion of the money customers pay for “permanent storage” is deposited into the Forever Guarantee Fund, a restricted fund that acts like a permanent endowment or reserve, with earnings paying for storage, bandwidth, and migration to new file formats for generations into the future (Note all of this is clear brochure-content, and thus
WP:CORPDEPTH since that itself says materials must not be press releases or similar. Any article that is closely focused with what the company advertised at its own website is clearly not independent, because no one but the company itself would say it. Next, all of the sources are clear publications, such as a radio station, which are known for simply airing whatever commercials the company wants, and that itself still violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it's not a significant source. As it is, this company is based in Pittsburgh, so it's only obvious that their local publication would advertise a local business, as all of them choose, and thus also violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it says such news stories are not notable-causing. The basis of "The article is still notable since the last AfD" is not acceptable because we've always renominated articles and there's no policy against it. Next, each article above is from each company financial quarter, not a consistent flow of coverage (see above, January 2016, January 2016, September 2016) so it's not even satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either since it's not consistent, so that emphasizes the fact it was simply to motivate their own advertising. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note all of this is clear brochure-content – I have not seen "clear brochure-content" list the downsides of the service which the
Barron's article does. I have not seen "clear-brochure content" note that "It better have [improved its speed] if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts." Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Indeed this is
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It should be kept because it meets
Anup [Talk] 22:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I've gone through *all* of the sources provided here and in the article and *none* of the sources are reliable or independent of the subject and *all* of the sources are
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails to meet notability standards, in particular, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." All of the articles cited above are promotional. Glendoremus (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles cited above are promotional. – the
Barron's article says:
Downside? Forever claims to be the only photo cloud service that guarantees permanence—storing your photos securely and with data protection “through good times and bad”—but recent events have shown that cybercrime can happen on even the most secure systems. There is no real guarantee of permanence in the digital world. Perhaps the more serious drawback, we think, is the user experience. We uploaded a few photos on a free account, and found the Forever service to be time-consuming. The photo-uploading process was completed after several minutes, longer than it takes on other online storage services we’ve tried. Forever’s management says that’s because the cloud stores its photos in uncompressed file formats, which preserve the original resolution and quality of the photos. The firm is aware of the slow upload issue, however, and says it is working on speeding up the service. It better have if Forever is to migrate from a novelty service to a business that lasts.
An article that criticizes Forever cannot be considered to be promotional.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article notes:
That said, questions remain.
David Thaw, an information security expert at Pitt's School of Law, said the 100-year guarantee is not ironclad.
“From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.”
Forever says that its customers' photos will be saved for their lifetimes plus 100 years. A promotional article would not say Forever's "100-year guarantee is not ironclad" and then quote an information security expert to say that it's not guaranteed because what if "Forever goes out of business".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You make much the same points above and I won't repeat the reponse here but I'll summarise by saying that the sources are not independent from the subject and therefore fail as reliable third-party sources.

Your point about the security expert comments is disingenuous to the article contents. In the interests of complete disclosure you should also include the very next line (and possible the ones after as well) which state “From reading the terms of service, it looks like they are making a legitimate effort to set up a service with guaranteed longevity,” Thaw said. “But the biggest issue is if Forever goes out of business. ... As with all things, you can't make perfect guarantees and ensure they will be followed because things can happen.” Meakem's response: Even if Forever fails, clients' accounts will be safe. The Forever Guarantee Fund — established with an initial $1 million investment from Forever, plus ongoing contributions from new transactions — is separate from Forever, he said. “Every month we drop more money in,” Meakem said. “We think we're overfunded, which is good for the customer.” The money is invested in diversified stocks and bonds and is designed to earn 8 percent a year, Meakem said. Four percent of the fund profits is spent on the site services, including security and migration issues. If Forever does fail and the accounts can no longer be maintained, the terms of service state that the fund will be used to return content to clients. Giving the company the right to reply (to faint criticism to start with) and turn it into yet-more-promotional-blurb is the epitome of promotional placed advertorials.

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Looking at the reliable sources referenced in the article, I don't see why they wouldn't count towards notability. The same person sending the same article to AFD a second time, and pinging 5 people on the talk page he felt would agree with him to canvass them over here, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 10:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you have a different idea of what constitutes a "reliable source" than other WP editors. Can you list the sources you consider to meet the criteria here please?

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Pittsburg Business Times interviewed the guy about this when he first started, there a video interview there in the long written article about it. [1] I believe the ample coverage given by the reliable source of the Post Gazette counts. [2] Dream Focus 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the PBT interviewed the guy and yes, the article is another perfect example of an

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

When anyone is interviewed or written about, they quote them. I doubt they are being paid to do that. You have no evidence of that at all. Anyone successful in business is going to be sought after by the media. Dream Focus 18:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are simply weak source - what the company/representative says about itself. Independent (on the subject of this article) coverage would be more useful (eg. reviews of their services). Pavlor (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles have to meet a particular test for notability and there are policies and guidelines to help determine the suitability or otherwise of each subject. One of the key tests for organizations

WP:CORPDEPTH

states that acceptable sources specifically *exclude* quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

So while it is true that articles written about notable organizations may often include a quote from personnel, there are also other factors such as the nature of the publication itself, the expertise of the author or journalist and context of the entire article must be taken into consideration. In this case, it is very obvious that these articles are advertorials and it is not an accident that every article contains an interview and quotations from Meakam advertising his company.

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There is nothing about interviews at all in that link. If a company is so notable they interview people about it, its the same as a book being notable because they interviewed the writer of it. The news source is independent of that company, they don't have the same parent company owning them. That's what "independent of the subject" means. Dream Focus 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage independent of the article subject in reliable sources = notability under the current standards. Not liking the prose is, as always, a content issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not find the sources presented here meeting
WP:AUD and are insufficient for notability. The coverage is routine, "local company does well" content. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Possible canvassing apart, having checked the sources I also am of the opinion that this is artspam. Multiple sources all saying more or less the same thing, multiple cites to the same sources, do not notabilty make, and there is also the question of dead links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (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.