Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiqup


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Quiqup

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill delivery company. Sources do not indicate anything unusual or notable about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment TTTZZZCCC (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Hello, I'm the author of this article and will be contesting the nomination for deletion. I have a COI in the matter as I'm working for the company which is the subject of the article - I've made the appropriate declarations in my author and talk pages. I will be submitting a fuller argument to accept this article below, but until then, just to give you a heads up, I'll be arguing that the sources cited in the page satisfies the criteria for notability, and I'll present a more detailed explanation for why Quiqup isn't a 'run-of-the-mill delivery company'. In particular, I will be saying that the on-demand services offered by the company is unique in the market for e-commerce fulfilment, with special reference to its role in facilitating SMEs to compete in e-commerce against players like Amazon. If you should have any questions please do let me know! Cheers.
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've also deleted most of the article as Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing or advocacy and most of the article regurgitated routine partnership and funding announcements. Also, while says above that the sources satisfies the criteria for notability, I do not know what this means. If he means that the sources themselves meet the criteria for "reliable" and "independent" sources, that may be true. But examining the sources provided in the article with the specific guidelines for sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability and especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND results in the straightforward conclusion that *all* of the sources provided in the article fail either one or the other and often both. This article is corporate spam and the topic fails notability criteria.  -- HighKing ++ 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- promotionalism with routine coverage such as:
 * In May 2016, Quiqup entered into a partnership with Whole Foods Market.[13] In July 2016, the company entered into a partnership with Burger King.[14][15] In June 2017, the company entered into a partnership with Tesco to launch a 1 hour grocery delivery service. [16][17][18] Etc.
 * WP:PROMO on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment TTTZZZCCC (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I've deleted the sections highlighted by as promotionalism - such as the partnership with Whole Foods Market, Burger King and Tesco. However, it seems to me (and obviously I might be biased), that with Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods Market it represents a clear merger of delivery operations and physical brick and mortar retail (in this case, groceries). Cases like Quiqup's partnership with Tesco, then, could be notable because they present an example of how 3rd party logistics providers can offer a response to large ecommerce players who are competing with brick and mortars lacking delivery capabilities. i.e. notability as justified by operation in an emerging market trend to merge on-demand with retail verticals beyond made foods.


 * Nevertheless, I have removed the offending sections and will be conducting a more thorough review of the cited sources, such that they may be readjusted to better fit 's concerns with promotional/marketing material. Having said that, I very much appreciate the work by the various commentators in pointing out the flaws in the article - hopefully we can find together a workable solution that is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards of publication. Cheers.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 01:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Unchanged -- routine launch publicity and funding news. No notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable and there's not only routine coverage (http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/quiqup-save-high-street-onslaught-amazon/entrepreneurs/article/1420087 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/23/start-up-will-deliver-almost-anything-can-buy-high-street/ in particular). Peter James (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Have not seen the original, presumably much more promotional text, but as it stands, it definitely passes WP:CORPDEPTH, with the Telegraph and MT articles, as Peter James has pointed out. Edwardx (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  06:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Ping for their takes on the new arguments put forward. Winged Blades Godric 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two steps involved in examining sources against the criteria for establishing notability. The first step is to check that the individual sources meet the criteria for reliable sources and there are a number of guides and essays that can assist with this. For many editors, they simply stop at this step - "Yup, reliable source, mentions topic - check, topic is notable". This is wrong. The second step is to ascertain whether the reference (published by the reliable source) meets the criteria for establishing notability. For organizations, (at least) two references that are "intellectually independent" from the topic need to meet criteria found at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in order for the topic to meet notability criteria.
 * Looking at the two sources mentioned by above against these criteria, both the managementttoday article and the telegraph article fail WP:CORPDEPTH since it relies on quotations from a company officer and fails WP:ORGIND since the material is provided/written by the company. Neither article is "intellectually independent" - neither shows any evidence of independent fact checking. While the sources are "reliable", they are simply (and reliably) regurgitating quotations and material provided to them.
 * My !vote remains unchanged. There does not appear to be any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is quite widespread practice these days, even in reliable sources, for business coverage to shade into advertorial. The MT article is more prone to this than the DT one, which only has two quotes from the company and one from a funder. These two articles are really not that bad. I started an article today on OBike, which has only been around since January, and I think all of the sources include quotes from the company. There is a danger here of setting an unreasonably high bar for newer companies! Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is not an "unreasonably" high bar to set. Notability is not so difficult to define, at least for companies. I believe the policies and guidelines have done a good job. If a company generates their own "buzz" that eventually transmutes into "intellectually independent" references being generated, they've met the bar. But until that transmutation happens and sources merely regurgitate quotes and announcements from the company, they do not meet our criteria for notability as there is no independent analysis or thoughts expressed. -- HighKing ++ 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some quotes but that is not all there is. It's clear that people consider it notable enough to write about and ask people from the company for more information. I would expect a publisher with reputation as a reliable source to apply at least the same standards to this type of coverage of companies as to the rest of its coverage (unlike press releases where it should be clear that a company is announcing something rather than the publisher reporting on it). Peter James (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "There are some quotes but that is not all there is" - obviously other editors can read the articles and make up their own minds, but for me, if you take away the company-generated facts/data/quotes, there's nothing of substance left in the references. -- HighKing ++ 16:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So an obscure company announces something and you think the newspaper writes about it indiscriminately without assessing whether it's important enough to be in the newspaper or checking the facts, only interested in sales of newspapers? Such a newspaper clearly wouldn't be a reliable source, and probably wouldn't even be successful - why would anyone advertise when they can have it published as news, for free? Peter James (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, its called churnalism. -- HighKing ++ 10:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I added the news that they just partnered with Tesco - this puts them over the top for notability, when the foreign funding for expansion is considered. I noticed that there are duplicate links violating WP:OVERLINK, but they show notability, and once this is closed I'll remove them, or extract more info to justify them being kept. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not every source that includes quotes from the subject's people is "churnalism". Independence is only missing when the whole article is based on words by the subject. Neither the Telegraph article nor the source added by timtempleton are such sources. More sources:  . Sufficient coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Regards  So  Why  17:41, 22 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.