Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upiq

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upiq

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

At first glance this looks like a nice article, but despite the fact it is not a stub, I think it fails WP:COMPANY, badly. There is nothing in the article to suggest this 17-person company is notable other than a generic MSNBC ref about the industry (not the company), all refs are from self-published or data mining sites (LinkedIn, Alexa, Trakik, TechCrunch). On a further note, considering how well the article is written with regards to our MoS, Travelgurus (talk · contribs) may be a sock of a more experienced Wikipedian, with implaction for possible CoI (this looks like an article that could have been written for a commission). Now, personally I don't have problems with people writing for commission - provided they follow proper procedures, disclosing CoI, and creating notable articles. This doesn't seem to be the case. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most references are not from self-published sites like LinkedIn. This article has lot of independent references as the ones listed here:

Furthermore, references from sites like Alexa, BuiltWith, Appdata.com, TechCrunch, Trakik.com, Crunchbase are not self-published sites and they are widely used on Wikipedia to provide accurate data about WP:COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelgurus (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved from talk page (misplaced edit) NtheP (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - The article about Upiq is a well written article about a notable WP:COMPANY with a lot of independent references and with lot of links from and to other notable travel search aggregators on Wikipedia. There is no reason to delete this informative, neutral and well-referenced article. 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelgurus (talk • contribs)

Above comment added by the article's author --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of article does not appear to have enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to warrant notability per WP:GNG. Primary editor can wish to userfy article if it is believe that the subject falls under WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The references are mostly the company profile entries in directories, self-published material or otherwise unreliable sources lacking recognition and editorial oversight. Furthermore, this business is just one of many, indistinguishable among others. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP: WEBCONTENT. Electric Catfish 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be important, be it an article about web content, online application or whatever of a kind. But this article is about company instead, so the questions of whether it meets WP:WEB, WP:BLP and WP:NSPORT are irrelevant. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (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.