Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupoNation


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

CupoNation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too soon. Not notable enough yet. Seems to fail WP:CORP. No non-PR independent, reliable sources yet. See discussion at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 06:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It looks like promo or nn WP:CORP fail for various reasons: Created and expanded in the last few days by SPAs. An section called The Swedish Housing Shortage concerns a dubious connection to refugees in Europe, and provides a quarter of the sourcing. The rest of the sources discuss routine startup funding, purchase of another nn company for undisclosed sum, and a self-cited factsheet. — Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete COI/paid editing is highly likely whenever a fully formed article complete with perfectly formatted references and infobox springs from the hands of a "new" editor, as this one did. However that is immaterial. This start-up, in operation for less than four years, comprehensively fails WP:CORP. The references are all either to the company's own website, self-written profiles, press releases. or press release-based articles with routine announcements of new funding rounds, minor acquisitions, etc. I can find nothing better. A sign of how they were really struggling for coverage to use in the article is the earth-shaking fact (now removed) that they couldn't afford the office rent in Stockholm. As for the SVT interview on the office rent problem with the company's Public Relations Coordinator, Lukas Ohlsson and such soundbites allegedly attesting to notability, this article in the Columbia Journalism Review should be required reading. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- Thanks for sharing the CJR article. Thus a question: If he is just the results of powerful PR - why does Benjamin_Wey still have a Wikipedia page? The first part of your argumentation is understandable, but this argument is contradictory when talking about Wiki requierments. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Wey does not have an article because of his PR-generated coverage, although that's what the editors whom he had paid to write the article had originally used as "sources". He has an article because, unfortunately for him, he has been the subject of multiple independent coverage in major publications for his legal issues, as you can easily see if you read the article and its talk page. We don't "award" articles for meritorious behaviour. We write about what major publications have taken note of and written extensively about. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep- Being the initial contributor of this page I would like to quickly comment on my reasoning behind adding this article. First of all, thanks for saying and assuming that I am a paid writer. So my initial research was apparently too well done...WP:CORPDEPTH&WP:ORGIND I also know that Wiki is not |LinkedIn :-).To explain why it might looks as it is: I ve been active on Wikipedia some time ago, so I still know the code a nice looking article. Design matters here, and always when I see a badly edited article, I ll try to update it as I did in the past. About the topic: Having seen some articles on the "swedish housing crisis" (that's how I called it), I also saw a lot of articles on this small company I never heard of before. Agree, I got a lot of articles as sources which might be - or are - much PR guided by the company. At a later stage I planed some info about the company, which is apparently active and strong in multiple markets around the globe. Fully agree, its content might at the current stage look PR influenced, but thats solely due to the sources I found so far. However, as the company claims to have a strong role in some markets, I see a certain Wiki relevance here (as apparently some remote football stadiums in Brazil have) and hope other contributors can help me to modify the stub in a "wiki appropriate manner". Last but not least: The argument "It's just 4 years old" is in my opinion not a proper argument I would say, as many companys are currently growing very fast, such as Snapchat. I think Wikipedia also has the duty to be as up-to-date as possible. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've been active on Wikipedia since "some time ago", it must have been with a different account. You registered your account 2 weeks ago. You then made 6 very minor edits, followed by adding a chunk to Rocket Internet, the parent company of CupoNation which you then created with your next edit. Be all that as it may, the age of a startup which is not publicly traded on a major stock exchange is highly relevant because it then requires extensive independent coverage to establish notability. Yes, some of them like Snapchat do grow very fast and end up valued at billions of dollars with extensive coverage (albeit not always favourable) in the New York Times, The Guardian, Time, CNN, NBC, CBC, etc., etc. There is simply no comparison with Cuponation. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did refer to an old account, I don't have access to anymore (thus not "since some ago", just "some time" ago - but anyways). I fully see your point and understand your reasoning for deleting this article. Checking current mentioning’s I agree that most of the current articles look rather PR steered. However, your comment exactly touched the point I was trying to make: When is coverage "independent"? While this discussion is going I spotted an article in a larger Spanish daily called ABC as well as in Germany in Wirtschaftswoche. I guess there is some interest in different countries, but it might be too early as you have to be stock listed or the next unicorn to be important. I see your point, but its currently really a unclear definition of relevance criteria. Having looked at other countries, I must say that at least the German wiki-guidelines are clear |here stating the exact need for an entry. Considering those, I see the lack of relevance, which might only be met on the point "dominating position in a market segment". Considering the size of the company and number of markets it serves, it might be the case, but clear arguments for this argument I could not find yet. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen the ABC articles, an interview with the CEO of the Spanish branch at the launch and ditto three years later and the ones in Wirtschaftswoche, an interview with the German CEO of the company and a routine announcement about the company's second funding round (which actually states that it's based on the company's press release). They do not indicate significance of the company, simply the fact that it has a well-functioning PR department. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the first ABC article. I think with the significance and PR-work we have a "chicken & egg" problem. How can something be significant, when noone knows about it? I agree on your point that PR can push the coverage (at least that is what they are paid for), however in case you are not a mountain/city or have have any natural importance, significance comes through publicity, which roots in PR. If we exclude PR impact from anything, most of the Wiki articles might have to be reviewed :-) Ac wlask (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I found some coverage but nothing solidly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Beyond sources that cover routine events (like receiving funding, etc), I couldn't find sources that cover this company in-depth, and enough of these sources to assert that significant coverage exists from secondary reliable sources (which is enough sources to write a full article without the need for original research). Hence, I am voting delete.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.