- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hinge (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO created by user who has since been blocked for disruptive editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What speedy deletion criteria do you propose to use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333: WP:G11... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There's a dedicated piece in the New York Times, TechCrunch and Business Insider (I like the last one particularly as it suggests the company is in trouble, the hallmark of a neutral and independent source). There's some lovely dirt dished from the Daily Mail, but I wouldn't go near that with a five foot pole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The referencing in the article along with the references provided by Ritchie333 indicate notability. G11 wouldn't apply, it's not written in a promotional manner (anymore, I've cleaned it up a bit). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per sources stated above by Ritchie333. The NYT and TechCrunch articles meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I meant to comment sooner, we ourselves at AfD have established that TechCrunch is in fact simply a webhost companies use to advertise themselves and this is obvious in case where literal specifics such as business plans, financial numbers and contact plans are listed, and the one above is shown in that ("Hinge is buildings", "[founder] hopes to have", "McLeod spent $25,000 on a huge 2,000-person launch party to kick-start its growth. The company only had $32,000 left in the bank at the time...." (no one would care at all about the money plans he paid aside from his own clients and investors), etc.
- Literally nothing from TC can be confident as both substantial and non-PR simply because the website itself opens to all PR use, hence the fact all articles listed there are the equivalent to PR. None of that establishes any actual substance especially if no actual journalism happened if it's simply the company advertising itself; as mentioned, the DailyMail is not usable at all and the NYT would still be too bare. Now, another important part is keeping to mind such blatant advertisements as these and we never compromise with them therefore deleting them is best to ensure we're not damned as a PR webhost as other websites have become. Once again, the TC itself once again always cares to begin with every "He said", "says the businessman", etc, hence not independent and not notable.
- As it is, the Keep who supplied these links was not confident about it simply given the bareness of actual substance. Also note the former article and now the current one, and it shows there's literally been no substantial changes of confident significance, let alone actual notability. As it is, the author behind this article has been involved in a notorious PR campaign which involved several multi-used accounts, and this is simply one of the articles in that advertising campaign, case closed. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I literally listed my concerns above about this two sources and how they are only PR-focused and consisting of what the company wants to advertise about itself, the Keep comment who stated these sources said "weak" considering there still was no actual substance, apart from these bare sources. SwisterTwister talk
- Comment to closer - Note that as what the nominator said here, the author user has now been kicked out permanently for massive advertising and using several accounts for this, including to harass others, therefore it not only emphasizes what a blatant advertisement this is, but what a damning effect of this being kept would have for Wikipedia. Therefore, it's not going to matter whether this would even be notable or not, and it clearly isn't given the fact everything available is either PR or trivial, but the nature of this article is enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only reliable source for notability here is the NY Times, and it's part of the GNG that one such source is insufficient in most cases. This is one of the provisions that art least partially guards against an article based on the fact that one journalist has decided to write it up, once. It's part of our defense agains articles mbased on "human interest" journalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - I think Business Insider is also a suitable source, and I feel it's more important we make sure what we do include is factually accurate, which tends to get glossed over too much (see numerous threads at WT:DYK for evidence). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The NYT piece is a commentary from users in the "Style and Culture" section of the paper which tends to comment on fashion and trends (which come and go). By itself, it is not enough. The other sources all either rely on interviews with the founder and are therefore Primary sources or are not independent. -- HighKing++ 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the app / company is not yet notable per available sources. NYT is not enough, and the rest are primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (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.