Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagup (business)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagup (business)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable startup that fails the requirements of WP:N: it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, especially when read in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing that does exist is either your typical startup press release churn, university PR sourcing, or run of the mill and trivial. After completing WP:BEFORE, I found no indication that this firm is notable, meaning that we should delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promotional puff piece. Fails notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in-depth to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Normally I would say we can remove promotional tone, but this one fits the definition of WP:ADMASK by way of this reference which says nothing about the topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments all! I am very new and this is my first Wiki article and I am trying my best to create a page that is non-promotional and verifiable by outside sources. I used the Uptake (business) page as my reference for syntax and content, however, after reading this page over again I can now see how it comes across as promotional and puffy. Am I able to edit the page while in 'subject to deletion' phase to get rid of promotional content and remove the one reference not related to the topic as mentioned by CNMall41's comment?
 * Thank you TonyBallioni for your comments but I do not believe it is PR fluff that I have reference and made sure to not include any content created by the company directly. I believe from reading WP:COMPANY that it meets the notability requirements by having "multiple independent sources"
 * Thank you all for your patience as I learn how to produce appropriate articles on this great platform! ABgeer (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are more than free to edit the page to remove promotional content. However, you will need more than just "multiple independent sources" to show notability. Please refer to the section on depth of coverage as it will help if you add references that meet this criteria.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your help CNMall41. While I do acknowledge that some of the company reference pages are not very 'in-depth' and only reference general company details like location or year of founding, I do believe that this reference here goes into very deep detail and is from a very reputable academic institution. While the other reference are not as in-depth as this one, they do not seem to be bad enough to meet the exception criteria in depth of coverage ABgeer (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is a PR source from one of MIT's communications professionals. Of course they are going to promote their students, alumni, and others that use their resources. It makes them look good and is a way of promoting their university brand. It would fall under WP:SPIP. I'll ping so they're aware of your comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , is correct about WP:SPIP. While it is in-depth, it will not be given any weight for notability since it comes from an organization with a likely vested interest. Even if it were considered reliable, it would still only be one reference and the others cited in the page fall well short of WP:CORPDEPTH. And that is a big "if" since I am probably more liberal with CORPDEPTH than others and even I would not consider that source reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, Thanks for your patience and for explaning your reasoning! I can now see why there would be the perception of non-independence with the main author being MIT. With all this being said, would it be possible to re-edit this artilce to simply include the facts about the company and not any of the claims of what it can do for customers as that would be promotional and non-verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABgeer (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for TonyBallioni, but I can tell you that even with facts you will need to have references that show notability. Without those references, it really doesn't matter what is on the page - facts or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm typically more restrictive in my views on the inclusion standards than CNMall, but we are in agreement here: the current level of sourcing does not establish notability. I'll also go a step further: while your efforts to make the article more neutral are appreciated, one of the issues with it is that simply having an article on the English Wikipedia, one of the most visible websites in the world, is a form of promotion if the article itself would be the most significant coverage that the subject of the article has ever received. That would be the cases here. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion, it would be inappropriate for us to retain the article even if it were a just the facts version. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

,, thank you for your help and feedback. Given your input, I think it is best to not publish this page until more independent coverage has been received. Is there a way to keep the source code and have it sit in the 'background' unpublished until more independent sources are available? ABgeer (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:33, 15 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.