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 keep.  Sandstein  20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quiqup[edit]

Quiqup (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)

Run-of-the-mill delivery company. Sources do not indicate anything unusual or notable about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2016, Quiqup entered into a partnership with Whole Foods Market.[13] In July 2016, the company entered into a partnership with Burger King.[14][15] In June 2017, the company entered into a partnership with Tesco to launch a 1 hour grocery delivery service. [16][17][18] Etc.
WP:PROMO on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I have removed the offending sections and will be conducting a more thorough review of the cited sources, such that they may be readjusted to better fit HighKing's concerns with promotional/marketing material. Having said that, I very much appreciate the work by the various commentators in pointing out the flaws in the article - hopefully we can find together a workable solution that is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards of publication. Cheers.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sources mentioned by Peter James above against these criteria, both the managementttoday article and the telegraph article fail WP:CORPDEPTH since it relies on quotations from a company officer and fails WP:ORGIND since the material is provided/written by the company. Neither article is "intellectually independent" - neither shows any evidence of independent fact checking. While the sources are "reliable", they are simply (and reliably) regurgitating quotations and material provided to them.
My !vote remains unchanged. There does not appear to be any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing++ 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite widespread practice these days, even in reliable sources, for business coverage to shade into advertorial. The MT article is more prone to this than the DT one, which only has two quotes from the company and one from a funder. These two articles are really not that bad. I started an article today on OBike, which has only been around since January, and I think all of the sources include quotes from the company. There is a danger here of setting an unreasonably high bar for newer companies! Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is not an "unreasonably" high bar to set. Notability is not so difficult to define, at least for companies. I believe the policies and guidelines have done a good job. If a company generates their own "buzz" that eventually transmutes into "intellectually independent" references being generated, they've met the bar. But until that transmutation happens and sources merely regurgitate quotes and announcements from the company, they do not meet our criteria for notability as there is no independent analysis or thoughts expressed. -- HighKing++ 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some quotes but that is not all there is. It's clear that people consider it notable enough to write about and ask people from the company for more information. I would expect a publisher with reputation as a reliable source to apply at least the same standards to this type of coverage of companies as to the rest of its coverage (unlike press releases where it should be clear that a company is announcing something rather than the publisher reporting on it). Peter James (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"There are some quotes but that is not all there is" - obviously other editors can read the articles and make up their own minds, but for me, if you take away the company-generated facts/data/quotes, there's nothing of substance left in the references. -- HighKing++ 16:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So an obscure company announces something and you think the newspaper writes about it indiscriminately without assessing whether it's important enough to be in the newspaper or checking the facts, only interested in sales of newspapers? Such a newspaper clearly wouldn't be a reliable source, and probably wouldn't even be successful - why would anyone advertise when they can have it published as news, for free? Peter James (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, its called churnalism. -- HighKing++ 10:33, 20 July 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.
More