Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unqork


 * 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. This is a somewhat messy discussion, due to the revelation part-way through of undisclosed paid editing on the part of a contributor. However, taken in toto I see a consensus to keep, because the sources found by said editor have been explicitly evaluated by others, and found to be reasonable. It is particularly telling that one of the editors arguing to delete subsequently changed their opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Unqork

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Blatant advertisement must be speedy under G11. I am unable to locate enough references that satisfy WP:SIGCOV with WP:CORPDEPTH. And fails WP:ORGIND. Let me elaborate more on references.
 * PitchBook: Press Release. fails WP:ORGIND
 * Forbes: Can consider
 * ey.com: Again a Press Release fails WP:ORGIND
 * Linkedin: Self-Published, not reliable fails WP:ORGIND
 * Crainsnewyork: I couldn't check this, paid suscription required. If anyone can check, please put your comment here.
 * Forbes: A list of Startup Employers of 2021 by Forbes, only a passing mention. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article fails to establish notability and reads like an advertisement. Page creator has contested the deletion on the article's talk page but most of the references they provided are either from the company's website or its Linkedin page. I'm also suspicious of a conflict of interest between the page creator and the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I improved the article with more info and sources. They all look good now - better than the ones listed on the talk page. The company is a tech unicorn with significant coverage in independent third party sources. There's more in Crain's NY Business but it's paywalled so I didn't bother adding it. Satisfies WP:NCORP. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Crain's NY Business reference relies entirely on an interview with Holloway (Unqork's head of public enterprise, tasked with bringing the company's products to the government sector), so fails WP:ORGIND which is a section in NCORP - can't see how you can say it passes NCORP. Did you read the article?  HighKing++ 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unconvinced by the flurry of passing mentions and a literal press release put up as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that PR doesn't work for notability, but it is allowed as a non-independent source, per WP:NIS, depending on how the info they contain is integrated into the article. Also there's a significant difference in both reliability and tone between government releases and corporate ones. Nonetheless, in this case, there was another independent third party source for the info cited, so per WP:OVERCITE, I simply removed the press release. There are a few passing mentions such as in the WSJ and NY Times, completely appropriate based on what is being sourced, but the majority of the remaining coverage, including Forbes, Fast Company, Crain's NY and CNBC, is in-depth, satisfying WP:NCORP. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's perhaps marginal but there are better links not yet shown and meh not a clear fail. A simple Google is getting me 370K in hits, which is not much, and while much of it is just routine business press there is also a number of small-press or technical publications (e.g. techhq.com, crunchbase, techrepublic, sourceforge, aithority, morningbrew, venturebeat, alleywatch), and a few from larger media (multiple Forbes, CNBC, Yahoo, Medium).   It's still a new article and growing company so I suggest let be for now.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. another minor point, there are only a few WP articles mentioning Unqork, but it might be a good to have a wikilink work. See CapitalG, No-code development platform, Goldman Sachs, List of unicorn startup companies.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - google news shows many many news about them, some press releases, but I found a few good ones to add and also expanded the article. Check, , , Webmaster862 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second and fourth sources literally say "Promoted by Unqork" at the top. Crunchbase is a deprecated source; at best, Crunchbase News would be as usable as TechCrunch itself, which is yellow-rated at WP:RSP and specifically isn't usable as a claim of notability; only SDTimes might be usable, and that reads like a lightly-churned press release. What made you think a source that literally says "Promoted by Unqork" counts as an independent, third-party, reliable source that clearly demonstrates notability? - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems that just makes two usable as independent (and the other two usable as company press releases).   Software Development Times seems independent small press.  And Crunchbase News has no rating at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - that was recently looked at in RSN and seems OK, but it was cited only about 80 times which apparently is not enough to be in the list as  ‘perennial’.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Independent" has two facets as per WP:ORGIND - functional and intellectual. Sure, SDT is "functionally" independent but the article relies entirely on this Press Release and contains zero "Independent Content" so fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Crunchbase News article is based entirely on this Press Release and fails ORGIND for the same reason.  HighKing</b>++ 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for acknowledging that passes the functional or ‘Independent author’ (/editor) part, and clarifying trade press nature. Otherwise, the above seems just saying this did the normal for trade press so those two are usable as independent as ORGIND implies and concludes do use them for notability but “use with care”.  So consideration should perhaps be giving more importance to the coverage in Forbes, CNBC, Yahoo, and Medium - with trade coverage helping to a lesser extent of “use with care” because of the nature of trade publications and lower WEIGHT.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And thank you for acknowledging that these "did the normal for trade press", which is to rely entirely on the press releases without adding any "Independent Content". Therefore fails WP:ORGIND which doesn't "imply" that if a reference has no "Independent Content" it can be used to establish notability - in fact says exactly the opposite. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Changed my !vote as multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability have been identified. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or Press Release or other Announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails meets WP:NCORP criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As other users have noted, this company is regularly mentioned in the press and has been written about in numerous reputable publications like the Wall Street Journal, Crain's New York, Crain's Chicago Business, CNBC, Yahoo, Fast Company, and Forbes (and none of the Forbes articles cited are authored by a representative of Unqork.) This article has also been edited so it doesn't cite any press releases, in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Dilbert404 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Dilbert404 - press releases don’t help notability per WP:ORGIND, but are usable as cites in the article.  For example Microsoft has cites to their Investor relations, Corporate history, company vision, press releases, etcetera.  Just remember it’s a WP:BIASED RS.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Company shows up quite a bit in Google News. Some are indeed PR releases, but those have been removed from post. I added link from Nasdaq I found with additional details . Satisfies WP:SIGCOV with WP:ORGIND through coverage from WP:FORBES (not WP:FORBESCON), WSJ , Fast Company , and Crain's New York . Cheers 100Bunnies (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets general notability guidelines through multiple significant reliable sources, as explained multiple times above. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  12:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see why the combined sources mentioned here and on Unqork's page can't pass WP: SIGCOV. These may be worth adding to the page:, and   (the third is already a part of Goldman Sachs). Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first is a PR announcement by a customer who used the product and a quote from an employee, fails ORGIND. The second is a mention-in-passing about funding received, fails CORPDEPTH. The third is entirely based on this Company Press Release, fails ORGIND.
 * Delete as per HighKing.GermanKity (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GermanKity: HighKing supports keep per available sources. Per argument, you too? gidonb (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, the reasons put forward for Keeping the article are:
 * "a tech unicorn with significant coverage in independent third party sources"
 * "there are better links not yet shown" + "A simple Google is getting me 370K in hits" + "still a new article and growing company so I suggest let be for now"
 * "google news shows many many news about them, some press releases, but I found a few good ones to add and also expanded the article."
 * "this company is regularly mentioned in the press and has been written about in numerous reputable publications"
 * "Company shows up quite a bit in Google News."
 * "meets general notability guidelines through multiple significant reliable sources"
 * "I don't see why the combined sources mentioned here and on Unqork's page can't pass WP: SIGCOV"
 * None of those reasons carry weight in light of the very simply NCORP requirements which contain the criteria for establishing notability - specifically each reference must meet the criteria. So far, not a single reference has been produced which meets *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND. The links in the article and those produce above also fail NCORP and it has been explained why - Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc, fail NCORP. WP:GHITS is not an argument that has weight at AfD, you need to provide links to actual articles and the volume doesn't matter, it is quality that matters. Articles in "reputable sources" are assumed but they too must meet NCORP, you don't get a pass if it has been published in the NYT or WSJ. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:HighKing ??? But there are big coverage, and one should count trade pubs too. I don’t think this was speaking to the various big-press Forbes, CNBC, Medium, Chicago.gov, Yahoo, TechRepublic, etcetera.  And I noted WP:ORGIND about trade pubs says “use with care” -  the word is “use”.  So please *use* those trade pubs, just like ORGIND says one should.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. Also, some minimum Google counts is indicated as needed in WP:GHITS, and Google News is spoken of as a positive but not required. Like your wikilinks to policy but... Suggest focus more on what the need is or strength is per NCORP and at what criteria are wanted, or granting time to the NEWPAGE, and less about seeking ATA what parts don’t count because... talking about things that don’t matter doesn’t matter.  I’m still at thinking it marginal but meh OK to keep.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This critique is *not* an accurate framing of coverage. To quote: "The links in the article and those produce above also fail NCORP and it has been explained why - Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc, fail ... you need to provide links to actual articles and the volume doesn't matter, it is quality that matters. Articles in "reputable sources" are assumed but they too must meet NCORP, you don't get a pass if it has been published in the NYT or WSJ." The mentions in WSJ and Forbes  are substantial features profiling the company and it's platform. These are *not* "Press Release, Company Announcement, interviews, mentions-in-passing, etc." as you describe them. They are full, focused features in WP:RSP that cover business and tech. 100Bunnies (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many different ways this has to be explained for you to get it. Please carefully read the section on "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and the requirements for "in-depth coverage" in WP:CORPDEPTH. Then look at the articles you've linked to.
 * Take the WSJ reference for example. The third paragraph sets the scene for much of the article - it says that Holloway (an employee) got a call from Tisch of NYC's IT dept. The article then relies entirely on Holloway's account of the request and the work done by the company finishing with a description from Garcia from NYC's Dept of Sanitation of how the newly developed system works. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the topic company, it describes NYC's food programs. So you tell me ... which parts of this article contains in-depth information on the company which was provided by somebody unaffiliated with the company?
 * The Forbes article relies entirely on an interview with Hoberman, CEO and founder or the topic company. The article is peppered with quotes, facts and data attributed directly to Hoberman and the company including funding raised, customer experience and benefits (with information from Liberty Mutual, an early customer, definitely not "unaffiliated" to the company), a screenshot of the product (provided by the topic company), information on the market for the product with generic quotes from analysts (nothing *about* the topic company) and finally a description from Hoberman on how he will spend the latest investment. Again, you tell me ... which parts of this article contains in-depth information on the company which was provided by somebody unaffiliated with the company?
 * Your protests that the coverage is made up of "substantial features profiling the company" and are "full, focused features" may be true in one sense, in that the in-depth information was provided by an employee and/or the company, but they will still fail our criteria for establishing notability is there is no "Independent Content". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * re: WSJ. This is a quote from the article, which I must assume was cross-checked and vetted by WSJ editorial staff: "The city needed Unqork to build a digital platform that would allow residents to order free meals to be delivered by the thousands of city-licensed taxi and ride-share drivers who were desperate for work. Could Unqork get this done over the weekend?" I don't believe WSJ does churnalism or would simply re-blog a PR release. If that was the case, they should really be removed from WP:RS.
 * A similar story was told in the Fast Company feature : "Once the Unqork system was up and running, getting people the right information and services became rapidly streamlined, says Chris Geldart, the director of the D.C. Department of Public Works who was tapped by Mayor Muriel Bowser to lead local operations in response to the virus. 'The ability for us to use this tool early on helped with that—made it much less labor intensive' he says."
 * re: Forbes. It's not an interview feature or a profile of the CEO. I doubt he would talk about the direct competition in the space as is contextualized at the bottom. Once again, Forbes is on the list of WP:RS and I can only assume any facts or comments were vetted by an editorial staff and not churned over from a press release. 100Bunnies (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * re WSJ, even assuming that the single example sentence you've extracted from the article meets ORGIND, it fails CORPDEPTH. WP:SIRS says a reference must meet all the criteria which includes ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You can't pick one sentence from a reference and say "that meets ORGIND" and then pick another from the same article with some in-depth information provided by the company and say "that meets CORPDEPTH" and therefore the entire article meets the criteria. Doesn't work like that.
 * re FastCompany, that quote was provided by a customer which focuses on the NYC case study. Not an "unconnected source" and not an independent case study (if you search you can download a PDF of Unqork's case studies including one entitled "NYC Used No-Code to Mount a Rapid Digital Response to COVID-19").
 * re Forbes, the dead giveaway is that the images for the article have all been provided by the topic company and the mention of competitors is not uncommon for these types of articles. If Hoberman wasn't interviews then, how come the article can tell us what he intends to use the money to do? And no, the fact that this article appears on the "sites" portion of Forbes means that the default assumption is that none of the facts or comments "were vetted by an editorial staff".
 * For me, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I can see that there are analysts like Gartner and Forrester who have commented on the marketplace but to date do not appear to have published any in-depth research which would normally profile the leading companies. When this happens, those research reports are pretty much guaranteed to meet NCORP and if this topic company is profiled, may be used to establish notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is this recent Forrester report if that counts as a third party source:
 * "Unqork is the rookie of the year" <--sounds pretty notable to me. "The New York startup has captured attention with its recent $2 billion valuation and its brassy “no-code” marketing efforts. Strategically, the ﬁrm uses its internal experience and strong SI partnerships to focus almost exclusively on serving the needs of ﬁnancial services, insurance, public sector, and healthcare customers. This market approach is paying strong dividends: For all its brassiness (and a whiff of hype), Unqork knows its verticals and may have disruption in its DNA. [...] The development tooling is process-modeling-centric, and data transformation and manipulation are performed througha deep conﬁgurator. An unusually high number of styling options are provided for UI design. [...] We expect great things from this young company, but at this point, ﬁrms in its focus verticals or that aggressively buy into its no-code philosophy should primarily consider Unqork..." 100Bunnies (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Please Note: The Keep comments by these accounts strongly smell like sock puppets of a master here. User:100Bunnies : Total 3 contributions only on Unqork page and its afd check here. User:Dilbert404 : Creator of the article. Only 40 edits and created two company articles Unqork and other which is again a promotion Fast Radius, check here.  User:Markbassett: Rarely participate in afd and check this user's talk page history, time to time he deletes controversial conversations from his page, [check here]. DMySon (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the main issue here is a fundamental disagreement over what sources satisfy WP:ORGIND, whether or not WP:GHITS is enough to indicate notability, and what sources count as independent. Maybe it's time for a happy medium, like one of Wikipedia's alternatives to deletion. Perhaps incubation or the addition of relevant tags? Let's work toward a solution. Dilbert404 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete A big no. Promotion of a startup company which is nowhere passes WP:CORP and fails WP:GNG.DJRSD (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a promotion. As mentioned above. The company has WP:SIGCOV (i.e., full features; not PR releases, paid ads, or passing mentions) from Forbes, WSJ , Fast Company , and Crain's New York .100Bunnies (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said above. *None* of those references contain any information/data that could be considered "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. All of the information was provided either by the CEO/Founder or an employee or by the same "customers" that have been used for promotion in numerous articles. If you want to keep pushing the opinion that the meet the criteria, please point to the parts of each of those articles that you believe contains in-depth information *on the company* that was provided by somebody not affiliated to the company. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there are numerous reputable independent sources, most of which are included in WP:RS. These are sources which verify any facts and figures (hopefully) and not just re-print press releases. 100Bunnies (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All true except for your interpretation of "independent". Check out the "Independent Content" definition in WP:ORGIND. If you wish to discuss in detail any of the sources you believe meet NCORP, just post below a link and point to the part of the article which you believe meets *both* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH (as per WP:SIRS criteria). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems like we're not going to get anywhere debating whether or not this company is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page at all, since that's just a fundamental disagreement between users. Instead, does anyone, <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b> or otherwise, have any suggestions on improving the content of the page itself that don't involve arguing about coverage? That might be a more constructive use of this discussion, either that or talking about alternatives to deletion. Dilbert404 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article can be moved to Drafts. For me, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I can see that there are analysts like Gartner and Forrester who have commented on the marketplace but to date do not appear to have published any in-depth research which would normally profile the leading companies. When this happens, those research reports are pretty much guaranteed to meet NCORP and if this topic company is profiled, may be used to establish notability. But until then, I'm not seeing any references that meet NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From Forrester
 * "Unqork is the rookie of the year" <--sounds pretty notable to me. "The New York startup has captured attention with its recent $2 billion valuation and its brassy “no-code” marketing efforts. Strategically, the ﬁrm uses its internal experience and strong SI partnerships to focus almost exclusively on serving the needs of ﬁnancial services, insurance, public sector, and healthcare customers. This market approach is paying strong dividends: For all its brassiness (and a whiff of hype), Unqork knows its verticals and may have disruption in its DNA. [...] The development tooling is process-modeling-centric, and data transformation and manipulation are performed througha deep conﬁgurator. An unusually high number of styling options are provided for UI design. [...] We expect great things from this young company, but at this point, ﬁrms in its focus verticals or that aggressively buy into its no-code philosophy should primarily consider Unqork. Unqork declined to participate int he full Forrester Wave evaluation process." 100Bunnies (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, excellent find, that research report from Forrester ticks all the boxes for me (would be nice to add it to the article also). Can you find another similar report from a different analyst firm (usually when one analyst firm covers the space they all eventually do)? If so, I'll change my !vote. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the topic company mentioned in the equivalent Gartner report but you may have better knowledge about whether they've been included in any other research than me. But this type of in-depth "Independent Content" is perfect. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * * Hi . Agreed. I added link and reference to Forrester in the post. There is also an existing link to an analysis from HfS [] already referenced in the post. I'll update with additional analyst content as I look around. 100Bunnies (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm happy to change my !vote based on the research reports. Thanks for sticking with the process and rooting out what was required. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed some of the poor sourcing that was recently added, restored TechCrunch funding news (TechCrunch isn't deprecated) and added an indepth research report, which seems to have been embraced as a clear sign of corporate notability. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer and other contributors has disclosed on their talk (and now on their userpage) that they are an employee of Unqork; their contributions here up to this date have constituted WP:UPE. I haven't blocked, since they have no disclosed and offered to withdraw from this discussion and abide by the relevant guidelines, but I wanted to note that connection here for your information.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.