Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kami (app)


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Kami (app)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly non-notable Notable PDF :) Light2021 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not need a Wikipedia article. Seems to be a promo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishkafle (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Why do you think the subject is non-notable? The article cites many reliable, independent sources that provide substantial coverage. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It lacks Corporate Depth, coverage are usual press and nothing substantial. Article has mentioned Angel.co, Crunchbase as a source which is like having Facebook profile for any company. At this time, it is not enough notable, in future it might become notable and at that time it should be part of wikipedia for sure. Currently it does not hold that value. Light2021 (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Typical startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  10:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep But make draft. Anecdotally, I'd be inclined to say Keep, as being local to NZ I have heard about this company. However but can't find any examples of deep, non-trivial tertiary coverage that goes beyond press releases, routine announcements and things like non-notable award nominations. I would say they are very nearly notable and AfD is a bit extreme. I vote to keep the the article with the proviso that it is DRAFT, giving time to establish notability.Kieran21 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another independent article has been published in the last few days and cited. TBH, I don't have strong feelings about it, but it's notability is increasing so I'm leaning to keep. Nurg (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per additional sources added by Nurg.- gadfium 19:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the article suffers from WP:CITEKILL. Just about all of the references are based on PR and company announcements. There are 21 references in the article. Note that references must contain Independent Content and therefore must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Excluding Primary sources and blogs (which fail WP:RS) and articles explicitly marked as Press Releases which obviously fail the criteria for establishing notability:
 * This is a listing in angel.co based on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Tech Republic interview with company founders fails WP:ORGIND
 * Life Hacker review of the product doesn't mention the company (the topic of this article) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * ComputerWorld (archived copy) reference is based on a company announcement. Exact same quotes from Wang can be also seen in this reference. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This TechInAsia reference only contains information on the company which was provided by a founder, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * This from NBR is based on a company announcement and information from their website and interview, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from NZ Herald is based on an interview/announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Stuff reference is more PR based on an interview with the Chairman, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Tech (archived copy) is based on a company announcement of funding and has almost no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * This from NZ Herald is based on a company announcement of funding (also covered in this story) and relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This is NZ Herald is an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This review of the product has no information about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. While the references show that the company has engaged with press and has a functioning marketing department, there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:32, 7 July 2020 (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.