Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upwave


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Upwave

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies,  and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:
 * This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
 * The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
 * This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
 * This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
 * Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
 * In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do.  HighKing++ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Articles for deletion/Survata. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:49, 13 July 2024 (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.