Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moov


 * 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. SpinningSpark 23:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Moov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Plenty of regurgitated press releases and advertisements but nothing meriting notability. A clearly affiliated editor very recently removed the advert tag but clearly hadn't read the blatantly advertorial text. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please assist me in identifying and correcting the content that is advertorial text. Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Previous Advert Tag has been added back to this entry Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

All changes made by me have been reverted to previous version, resolving the COI. I will suggest review of the page using the article's talk page in the future. Velella Please resolve the deletion claim. Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (but improve). I believe there is enough written about this company to qualify for the depth of coverage, but there will need to be a lot of content removed. Focus on the milestones of the company and coverage in both business publications and fitness magazines and this should not be too difficult. Just the facts; short and sweet; encyclopedic. Look at other stub articles for ideas. giso6150 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - this version, which is what prompted the deletion notice, was 100% deletable per TNT. There was a bunch of self-reversion, leaving the article like this.  Starting at that version, I cleaned this up.  If it is kept it is unclear if it should be a product article or a company article so I removed the infobox; the way I left it, it is both.   Sources I could find are poor/bloggy. Nothing in the NYT (search), nothing in the WSJ (search).  Found one decent ref at the LA Times that I added. Not much though. I removed the advert/cleanup tags, as this is as good as it can be made, I believe. Here is the version as I vote.  This is marginal.  So for now, delete per WP:TOOSOON.   Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

consider addition of aditional information: https://angel.co/moov-2 - series B funding http://www.wsj.com/articles/funding-snapshot-moov-raises-12m-series-b-for-fitness-wearable-1476914097?mod=wsj_article - series B https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1bgtDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA172&dq=Moov+Now&ots=SKG0vEJKpc&sig=qmZh2coKpVyL4zjZfrbpQn9FkTQ#v=onepage&q=Moov%20Now&f=false - Moov is referenced in regard to personal data analytics Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * these are what we call "passing mentions" Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, Thank You. Would sports tracker of the year fall into this category as well? we received an award today http://www.wareable.com/awards/wareable-tech-awards-2016-winners Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We ? We ?? Any chance of an explanation ? On your user page here you say "As an employee of Moov, I will remove my contributions to this page to avoid a COI." .Is that no longer appropriate?  Velella  Velella Talk 22:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Velella in general it is fine for people with a COI to participate in discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in this case the use of "We" suggested an account used by more than one person and secondfly the editor had given a specific undertaking which seemed to be breached here. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  09:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, people who work for a company, when talking about things the company has done or achieved in the RW, often say "we did X" in that context.  this is different from an editor saying "we made X change" or "we don't understand X change" about an edit, which would be a sign of a shared account. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern in regards to users following the terms of service, Velella. This account is not shared. My above use of the word "we" is in respect to being a member of the company and represented as such in this discussion as the the company (full honest disclosure) and that "We" the company won an award. I myself(Matt - Moov, Inc) did not win the award, my company did. Using "I" in this instance would have been misrepresentative and would have likely been viewed as bad. In the future I will attempt to expressly use Proper names when appropriate. The corrected statement from october 27th should be "Moov won an award today...". Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Health/tech kitsch startups usually need to be exceptional to warrant articles. Fitbit, for instance, is notable for heavy coverage and a long list of firsts. Moov, at a glance, appears to be one of many (MANY) derivative products, and lacks the independent (non-routine, non-PR) coverage to show otherwise. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an insignificant tech startup; WP:TOOSOON applies -- the company is not yet notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in this article in The Verge, this article in the Los Angeles Times, and these three articles in TechCrunch. Moov passes Notability. The article passes Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I thought I had commented sooner here, I'll begin by noting we, first of all, have not at all considered TechCrunch independent because it will literally begin articles by "The company's information supplied this article today" or "The information listed here is courtesy of the company's website" immediately making it unacceptable; also, the other sources listed here are simply republications of that hence it's self-explanatory in that it was company-motivated one path or another. There's enough here suggesting there's been obvious company PR involvement in this article alone hence Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as spam. 2601:6C1:0:72FE:E905:4F28:756A:51B1 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty clearly looks like a not-yet-notable startup attempting to use Wikipedia to self-promote. Sorry, but you can't do that here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:38, 15 November 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.