Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UpCodes


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

UpCodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory-like entry on a private company that launched in 2016. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR-driven material based on WP:SPIP sources such as: "Q&A: UpCodes co-founder Scott Reynolds on a new way to look at ... Construction Dive-Aug 23, 2017". WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Besides the Construction Dive article which does seem to be a WP:SPIP source, there's 5 other seemingly quality sources that are independent from the company: TechCrunch, YCombinator, Curbed (owned by Vox Media), American Institute of Architects and ArchDaily.


 * In addition, there are many similar articles of companies in a similar space (and maybe other spaces, but I'm most familiar with construction-tech these days). Examples include Fieldwire, PlanGrid, FieldLens, Procore and I'm sure there's a lot more. These seem to be of similar encyclopedic content and with a similar amount and quality of citation material. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I have an affiliation with the company in this article. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Not for the first time, article need to be both "independent from the company" and also "intellectually independent". For example, the NYT might publish, verbatim, a press release. While the NYT is an independent secondary source, independent from the company, the article fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not intellectually independent. -- HighKing ++ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- TechCrunch doesn't do it for me. Y Combinator is a sponsor and therefore not independent. It is, however a huge user of wikipedia. The claimed 61,000 page views a month says nothing about the notability of the site or company.  Alexa, by the way reports no use of the site, which make a founder's claim suspect in my view. TOOSOON.  Rhadow (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, fair point about TechCrunch and YCombinator's relation to it.  I suppose the American Institute of Architects would be the strongest independent source.  In terms of the traffic numbers, I think Alexa does report use of the site (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/up.codes) and here's SimilarWeb (https://www.similarweb.com/website/up.codes). Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment -- the sources presented are far too short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, Am Institute of Architects that the article's creator presents as the "strongest independent source" is a republished press release, even including a quote from Upcdes:
 * UpCodes: Building Code Compliance Made Simple: The UpCodes database streamlines code information to help firms save time, money, and avoid construction mistakes!
 * "We are putting our heads together to reduce all friction in locating code. Construction codes are a large corpus of information. Increasing access and simplicity to the system provides the stimulus for innovation!" –UpCodes! link
 * Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 9 November 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.