Talk:Rocket Internet
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Rocket Internet is a big thing and deleting the page would be foolish. If this seems like promotion, let it stay and catch up to people's edits. I myself was looking for data when I stumbled onto the page. I am not a wiki writer but it just seems odd to me that such a page is listed for deletion.
Former managers
I fail to see relevance of the following part: In 2011, 20 of the then-130 employees left Rocket Internet at the same time.[13][14] According to media coverage at the time, the reason for this string of layoffs was “bad quality of new products” and a “gruff manner” towards employees in the course of Rocket Internet’s expansion into a “large corporation”. The former Rocket Internet managers subsequently went on to found the incubator Project A Ventures with help from the Otto Group.[15]
New employees are joining all companies at all times. Are we supposed to mention all staff news. Employees also leave companies. Thats normal business. I can´t see this content as "controversial" or even relevant. Especially the last part: The former Rocket Internet managers subsequently went on to found the incubator Project A Ventures with help from the Otto Group.[15] seems even more random. Why should it be mentioned, where former managers are going ? It doesn´t make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.203.22 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia follows the sources. If they found it notable, why shouldn't we. WP:UNDUE is an exception, but follows consensus; it is not unilateral, as your repeated removal of content. Brianhe (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows relevant sources. If its done in a high quality manner. The sources used for the disputed passages are all blogs. And again, I can´t see the importance of mentioning a new firm created by former Rocket Internet staff. There are hundreds of business news sources out there which could find entry here. Blogs are certainly not credible. Its chitchat. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.18.57 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.