Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingogo (company)


 * 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 no consensus. Wildly divergent opinions suggest that another week won't help us arrive at a consensus.  A  Train talk 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ingogo (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear advertising in our policies WP:What Wikipedia, WP:Not webhost and WP:Promotion especially when the current sources here, are 1 (company website), 2-4 and 6-8 announcements, 5 is company website, 9-11 are the same. Take quotes such as If we take these seriously, they're in violations of not only the policies mentioned, but also WP:Not guide and WP:Not how-to since they act how "[articles should not] guide the reader how to use it". These are all self-service announcements by and for the company and WP:NPOV explicitly shuts them out as possibilities here, and how it won't allow such indiscriminate coverage here. If we actually remove everything here, there would be nothing, literally, since it all mirors an investor profile, not an encyclopedia article. If we also apply GNG here, it says "articles must be excluded by WP:What Wikipedia is not" and that articles must be in acceptable state when started, not if they can be. By face value, these only show the company is eager for attention and it makes sense why they it was declined, and the last thing needed here is actually to aid and abet their attempts. Worse, the user was clearly a company employee based on behavioral pattern yet never cared to comply with our Terms of Use, that and the webhosting concerns are always enough for deletion here and the WMF has agreed which is why they started such Foundation Policies. The sources found here are: 1-10 announcements and 10-20 are the same, including different publications such as July 9, 2017 which says "new features about the product", or July 24 also saying "Ross Margolies increased its stake in Gogo Inc (GOGO) by 8.32%" therefore not independent. SwisterTwister  talk  00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ingogo wants you to hang on to the good drivers out there, with a new Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down feature on its taxi-booking app., Ingogo wants you to hang on to the good drivers out there, with a new Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down feature on its taxi-booking app, The receipts, accessible by guessing web addresses, revealed passengers' pick-up and drop-off GPS co-ordinates, the last four digits of customers' credit card numbers, the date and time of payments and, in some cases, customers' first names, Using its own GPS enabled booking system, the app allows any nearby taxi service to pick up the booking regardless of the company they work for", The customer is then able to track the taxi’s exact location and progress, with the payment being made from inside the app", "company gave drivers HTC One SV smartphones during the pilot but will soon upgrade to the One XL from the same Taiwanese manufacturer, ingogo managing director and founder Hamish Petrie said", "The app can store personal or work cards, plus corporate accounts that operate like an e-tag for automatic toll fee deductions", "funds will be used on marketing for the startup’s taxi booking app, and to support its expansion into Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Ingogo co-founder Hamish Petrie says the round was based on a $70 million pre-money undiluted valuation. Once share options and the like were taken into account, which Petrie cannot disclose, he says the valuation pushes towards the $100 million mark", a portable payment and accounting platform aimed at small and medium businesses in partnership with Xero. It’s only early days for that part of the business, which represents just a tiny fraction of the payments it currently processes, with the overwhelming majority coming from its taxi payments" (this one specifically was republished by a PR agency).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question SwisterTwister.  Sorry but I might be missing something, but I cannot see the quotes and text you have above in the article.  The article as it stands has too many primary references but seems salvageably okay or if not only WP:TOOSOON.   Aoziwe (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the quotesare from the references used by the article. They are evidence of their unreliability, because they're at best advertorials.  DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the quotesare from the references used by the article. They are evidence of their unreliability, because they're at best advertorials.  DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Close. The nomination is inchoate. Thincat (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review, having received significant coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Additional sources beyond those in the article are available via Google News and other searches. Regarding sourcing in the article, primary sources are allowed to be used to verify content, although secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. I have replaced some of the primary sources with secondary sources in the article. per your question above, the quotes in the nomination are not in the article; they are cherry picked from various websites. North America1000 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since this was nominated, it has not changed and the sources even added are still promotional as shown above and, as for the speedy keep, there's no basis since the nomination is policy-based therefore inapplicable. Until there have been improvements, it has no gauge for Notability. GNG says that minor changes cannot establish Notability and this article is no different.  SwisterTwister   talk  15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure there have been changes. I have replaced primary sources with new secondary sources, adding several new inline citations in the process. I'm still working on the article, too. These things take time. Spending my time here replying to inaccurate comments such as "it has not changed" is only preventing further improvements to the article. Also, AfD is not cleanup. North America1000 15:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Analysis - The first source is simply a ref name here, is once again an announcement: "Ingogo will give a "precise determination" and "Customers can use....Ingogo will give a "precise determination" (this is an Indiscriminate local journal of which WP:CORP and WP:N sas is not enough and  The second one, this, is not only an Indiscriminate source by WP:CORP and WP:GNG, see "Ingogo to offer - Ingogo is introducing fixed fares" & "Ingogo will give a "precise determination". It never matters if these are locally significant since they are motivated for local business therefore not independent outside of them or significant. Suggesting we become a republisher of this violates WP:Not a newspaper, fundamental to be enough. SwisterTwister   talk  16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references here seem every bit as bad as asserted--they are promotional in nature wherever published, and do not support notability DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi : Do you think that this article ("Taxi app Ingogo pulls online receipts after customer shows how thousands can be accessed") was sourced from a press release? Why would a company send notification about this bad company news? It appears that the reporter contacted the company, rather than vice versa. Try typing in the article title into a Google search (try this), and notice how there are no other "press release" type articles with this content. The fact of the matter is, not every source for every company is based upon press releases, although I am also aware that some are. No offense intended, but it's unclear why people on Wikipedia seem to often assume that all sources are from press releases as some sort of default. North America1000 23:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Does not show notability because 1/its trivial. 2/companies do report such things themselves rather than have others force them to 3/it is normal for those  promotional editors who have some degree of competence to include negative info so it doesn't immediately appear  too promotional  .  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. Regarding "they are promotional in nature wherever published", I don't view the source listed above as promotional at all, because it is not promoting the company whatsoever. If anything, it may actually inhibit consumers from doing business with the company. Regarding "its trivial", in the article, it states that an IT security researcher considered the matter to be of significance, referring to it as a "serious" risk. While this is not the most comprehensive article, it does provide some background about the company and its operations. Regarding "companies do report such things themselves rather than have others force them to", I searched extensively to find evidence of the article being sourced from a press release, and found nothing. Companies may do this, but there is no proof that this occurred for this article. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? Regarding "it is normal for those promotional editors who have some degree of competence to include negative info so it doesn't immediately appear too promotional", this may also be the case in some instances at some publications, but again, there is no evidence that your stance is associated with this article or The Sydney Morning Herald. Sorry for the wall of text, but you seem very assured that this is from a press release, but all signs indicate that it is not. See also WP:CRUSADE. North America1000 04:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * as I've said for many years on my user page, I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but does not address my concerns above at all. North America1000 22:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I did some editing, removed some verbiage that could be considered promotional and added a business model section, using one of the further reading sources. Looks like good coverage to me.  Ingogo is notable for its business model - - they're reported to be the first ride sharing company to offer fixed pricing (Uber copied that in the US and now offers fare estimates, at great benefit to consumers), and they allow anyone with the app to pick up fares - unlike Uber, where you have to be an Uber driver. That, and their record crowdfunding success (for Australia) make them notable. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But which policy basis would apply best here? (That's after all how WP:Deletion policy goes) Simply because the company may be significant in it' business isn't a criteria of its own for articles. After all, we need substance coverage that still isn't promotional, company publishings or republishings and in between. SwisterTwister   talk  01:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are independent, so it meets WP:ORGIND. Coverage is not trivial, so it meets WP:CORPDEPTH.  The coverage is national, so it meets WP:AUD. These are the three primary criteria for notability - WP:ILLCON doesn't apply in this case. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those are actual policies, but instead (like the header says) are notability-presuming guidelines for a possible article, there's a clear difference. As the nomination states, the policies we actually have here are instead WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not advocacy and WP:Promotion. How can those be refuted if they're pillar policies? SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No current consensus, another week to get more eyes?
 * Delete as I agree with the statements above and I even made some searches myself here and it simply mirrors either what the current article shows or clearcut PR, and none of that satisfies the GNG criteria. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  00:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just promotional cruft, as in: "Cab drivers process fares using a customised mobile application on Android smartphones" -- how would they be able to do that with a non-customised application? The rest of the article is the same, discussing the funding and fares, etc. This content should be excluded under WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Article fails GNG. -- HighKing ++ 18:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY thanks to NA1K and timtempleton; a news search brings up several promising leads. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:26, 16 August 2017 (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.