Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PepperTap (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to List of online grocers. The sources are mostly PR efforts and as such fails to reflect stand-alone notability for the subject. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  05:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PepperTap
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unaccountable closed as no-consensus,though the previous arguments seem to make a clear case for deletion. Non notable failed company, with minor new accounts, none of them substantial.  DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep or Merge to List of online grocers – Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, whether or not a company is defunct is not associated with topic notability, as per WP:NTEMP. See also: WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. However, this content could also be merged to the List of online grocers article. North America1000 23:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – See also: Indian Newspapers Search Engine results. North America1000 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect I think you have enough coverage for inclusion in the list. I don't think the coverage about it failing makes a particularly compelling case for inclusion and I am persuaded by Kudpung's analysis of WP:NOTNEWS in the original AfD. A startup where the main accomplishment is that like most other startups it failed, but got some coverage because of the failure seems like a very common sense thing not to keep as an article but to include in a list or potentially related article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable failed startup. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. " Light2021 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by . This article from Quartz provides an extensive profile of PepperTap. Titled "PepperTap's collapse shows everything that is wrong with India's young internet companies", it discusses in detail why PepperTap failed. This provides "deep coverage" of the subject. Per Notability (organizations and companies), "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The NDTV article titled "PepperTap Review: Great for Groceries, but Better Than Grofers?" also provides critical coverage of the subject. It says: "In terms of the design, there are a couple of things that could use improvement. For one thing, the Favourites section automatically lists items that are frequently purchased, but there's no way to add items to this section yourself. Secondly, you have to choose online payment first, and then select the mode of online payment i.e. cards, netbanking, or PayUMoney. That seems like an unnecessary extra step and we also wish that the app adds other popular payment options such as MobiKwik and Paytm." And the reviewer found the other company reviewed in the article to be better: "So how does it measure up to Grofers? While the overall applications are pretty similar, there are some differences between Grofers and PepperTap. Grofers lets you choose which store you want to buy from, which you can't do with PepperTap. Grofers also wins for now, because of its wider selection. However, at times you will find better deals on PepperTap, so it's worth it to check both apps when you're not in a hurry." The negative coverage disproves the assertion that PepperTap is "releasing articles on major media as paid" on NDTV. If NDTV were paid to write the article, the article would promote PepperTap, not recommend another company. PepperTap easily passes Notability. I would prefer a standalone article over a merge to List of online grocers because there is enough material for a standalone article. A merge would result in the loss of encyclopedic content so that PepperTap does not become undue weight in the list article. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage you are citing exactly the issue for this Startup for nominations for Deletion. These are Press coverage either paid or influenced by marketing team by company. There will be abundance of such news. How does even proves its notability, after the first nominations nothing has been done to this article. Because nothing can be done, If we keep accepting such articles, Wikipedia will,be filled with thousands of 1 Paragraph profile of Startups/ Failed startups. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List_of_online_grocers. Sourcing is enough for a couple of sentences, but not for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Delete. Once again, editors appear to misunderstand the criteria for sources to establish notability. Finding passing mentions of the company fails. Finding a review of the company's app also fails. Articles that rely almost exclusively on quotations from founders or other company officers or from materials provided or published directly or indirectly by the company fails. That said, of the sources listed above, I believe one, the vccircle article, meets the criteria. -- HighKing ++ 16:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not misunderstanding notability criteria. WP:CORPDEPTH states:
 * "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
 * The sources I provided above provide significant coverage about the company, its inception, history, mobile app and later decline, and are not particularly trivial in nature, although a couple are shorter compared to others. That said, I'm fine with a Merge to List of online grocers. North America1000 00:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When coverage about the company is directly attributed to quotes from company officers, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". If the material has been written or provided by the company, it fails WP:ORGIND (this covers regurgitated press releases also). For exmaple this hindustanstimes.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotes. -- HighKing ++ 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and then Redirect as fundamentally removing promotionalism and barring its involvement here in an encyclopedia is a priority above no other, and promotionalism is something the Foundation has unanimously considered as unacceptable, whatever claims there may be about it. While claims like "Third largest" could be significant, it's not what actually convinces to bypass our set policies against promotionalism, especially when the articles, even when not positive, cite information given by the company employees and this is immediately noticeably without looking far. Because we understand publishers willingly accept company-supplied information (the CEO said, Grofers co-founder said) and articles like that are as a business occurrence itself, not a notability one, it's therefore indiscriminate, and a policy we know well in that it supports deletion without objections, as we should here. SwisterTwister   talk  05:24, 5 July 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.