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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wakoopa[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wrote the article nearly a decade ago because I was using the app. It seems to have shifted significantly from its original purpose and so the article is pretty irrelavant now. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia deletion policy, but I have no objection to removing it as it does indeed seem pretty non-notable these days. Eplack (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Startups pivoting to a new business model is actually pretty common, and does not make an article irrelevant, just out-dated and in need of updating. Notability is a whole different matter, of course. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The firm now appears to be part of GfK following its acquisition of NetQuest in early 2016 ("It also includes the company’s subsidiary Wakoopa"). That gives a possible merge target, unless the earlier social network phase of Wakoopa merits keeping a distinct article. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertizing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to GfK; nothing here to support independent notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as typical "corporate spam". I don't see a point of merging as the article under discussion does not list any sources. If desired, sources identified at the AfD could be added to parent company GfK, but at present it does not mention the subject, so a redirect would be confusing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability and lack of sourcing makes it problematic. Don't see much material that if merged would lead to an improvement of the parent company article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 3 October 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.