Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

UrbanClap
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I thank the user for renominating, as this was and still is advertising; examining all of the sources listed before, at the AfD and afterwards, show it's all about the following: PR, republished PR, news about funding, partnerships, interviewed information, trivial coverage about other company activities and what they think of themselves. None of it came close at all, it seriously should not have been kept because of the overall questionability. The article currently itself is such an advertisement in that it only contains business-listing information about what the company is, its services and who the damn clients and investors are, none of that is acceptable at all, and what makes it worse is that company clearly is avid and persistent about this article since all contributors have been SPA accounts only focusing and changing this article itself. To make matters worse the 1st AfD of mine itself was swimming in clear attempts of employees or otherwise connected people who never, of course, acknowledged the concerns here because this article serves for only one thing and it's an obvious one: advertising. The other Keep votes themselves then actually at least stated there were in fact concerns, but that "fixing would perhaps help", that's not the philosophy we should keep, especially when the deep damages of such advertising actions cause. The "news" articles goes to blatantly contain such fluff and puffery such as "Time to UrbanClap if you are looking for services!" which then blatantly contain interviewed information and other puffery company achievements, then there's another that contains information about free charity activities the company initiated locally, that serves of no interests but to people who become company clients and investors, and that alone, because that means nothing for independent notability and substance here; another article goes as far to contain another blatantly company puffery of "UrbanClap's focus on local services benefitting both customers and service professionals" which then blatantly contains the life story of the businesspeople and company, yet another thing the company and its involved people would only know, and at that, know best. We seriously cannot kid ourselves that any of this is actually significant, substantial, etc. if it all centralizes to company PR and that alone, because no honest media (especially not one as notoriously pay-for-news as Indian news sources) would genuinely add such advertising puff. One thing we have to telling ourselves is "We should never compromise at all about accepting PR even if it's so sugarcoated and republished", because any forms of that happening damns Wikipedia to being a PR webhost. SwisterTwister   talk  21:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Cited sources meet coverage depth and WP:RS requirements to meet general notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The given sources meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The charge that "all contributors have been SPA accounts" is absolutely false. I rewrote the article prior to its AFD nomination, and I am certainly not a SPA. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given my analysis above, there is no depth or substance, because every source is PR in and of itself, it only contains blatant attempts at the company handing "news" to a source to publish to therefore emulate the "happening of news", the articles thenselcds have the crafted and essence of such methods, because an honest journalist would never care or be interested to go to such specifics about the company, lest either he was paid or persuaded for something, which is again the meaning of churnalism itself and the news world is getting worse because of it, therefore meaning the company is taking advantages of it, which is the conception and finalization of the supposed "news" above. Because churnalism continues and is largely becoming utilized by these companies, we therefore have to be careful what we actuslly call news, especially if it's in fact jacketed PR. SwisterTwister   talk  23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- while the article does not have an obvious "promo vibe" to it, in this revised form it offers no indications of why this company is notable or significant. This is essentially A7 material, a brief corporate blurb. The sources offered (entrepreneur.com, Gadgets Now and Times of India), while secondary, are not reliable for establishing notability. Thus, the article still falls under WP:NOT a promo, as the sole purpose of this article to exist is to promote the company. There's definitely no value to the general reader; it's simply a WP:DIRECTORY listing among other unremarkable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The Times of India is the third-largest paper in the second most populated country in the world. How is it "not reliable for establishing notability?" The first Times articles may be questionable; while not labeled explicitly as a press release, it certainly reads like one. The second link is to a video produced by The Times. That's quite a bit more compelling. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya! I though we are discussing about UrbanClap? Light2021 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I made an addition to the article, providing a claim of significance in the process (diff). I could add more, but will wait for now; not much point in spending time to improve an article that could potentially be deleted. Regarding The Times of India, which I consider to be a reliable source, it was ranked by the BBC as among the world's six best newspapers (sources:, ). North America1000 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the "claim of significance" is not convincing at all, as it comes from the company talking about itself:
 * Wiki article: "In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals."


 * Source provided: "Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services." The source continues: "Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals. (...) “UrbanClap is redefining how services are hired and consumed in India. UrbanClap will become synonymous with the word services for urban customers and professionals across the country,” said Abhiraj Bhal, co-founder, UrbanClap."


 * This is clearly not independent investigation by the news source; they spoke to the founders, they liked what they heard, and they ran the story. If Wikipedia were to start accepting such claims from private companies (as I said elsewhere they could be lying through their teeth) and without attribution, then Wikipedia itself becomes a platform for WP:CHURNALISM. That is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below in the box. North America1000 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Firstpost
 * Entrepreneur
 * The Times of India
 * The Times of India
 * The Times of India
 * The Economic Times
 * The Economic Times
 * Mint
 * The Hindu


 * We can keep going on writing or mentioning these articles as News source. Read the content of each, getting funded, there is a competition, hiring people. once in a lifetime coverage by major media. All these passes sources. Just because they are heavenly funded and can get coverage on major news and have the influence to write about daily operations, does not make them encyclopedia notable. There are thousands of company operations covered by all major media some way or other. Does that really makes them important here? or you just need to be elite and funded to get media attentions. Are any of these articles tells what so exceptional about this startup to be here? getting funded by IIT people? You mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. what about "Depth of coverage" by Wikipedia guidelines. Even we consider all these sources and we Try making an article for Wikipedia with these references. Something hopefully will come up? Operations of highly funded startup? is this all about it? It can not be more than a paragraph. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper pr platform for such funded startup, they are isusung popular news media by citing them. it is highly misleading and each and every article I went through, nothing but Press coverage, laucnh, Funding, Investments or daily operations! Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not .Light2021 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Repeating what I said in earlier AFD
 * Author is WP:SPA. Possibly a brand exercise by the company itself, violating WP:PROMO. A simple linkedIn search for the company matches the initials of the author with an employee. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources quoted by North America are the usual PR exercise that any other new company does to get eye balls ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I commented above; the project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF wasting volunteer editors' time and having articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom reasoning  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Switched to keep. I might vote keep. The way its written as of now, it is short and sounded like a short blurp on a company though. I read some of the further reading and possibly should be keep. I'll come back and vote keep if the sources from the Further reading are included. Pyrusca (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a typical standard to provide a reason for deletion when !voting. Check out WP:NOREASON for more information. North America1000 02:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding your !vote above (diff); much appreciated. North America1000 10:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles provided by clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Notability. For example, here is coverage from the First Post article: "Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology. After graduating from IIT, Abhiraj went on to IIM Ahmedabad, while Varun joined Qualcomm as an engineer. Eventually, they both joined the Boston Consulting Group. While in the US, a common friend introduced them to Raghav Chandra, an engineer at Twitter who shared their vision. After returning to India, the three realised that the industry of local services had seen no innovation for at least a decade, and decided to focus on solving this problem. UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board. The organisation grew rapidly as the team grew from 3 to 35 odd members and, by April 2015 UrbanClap raised $1.6 million in the seed round of funding, from SAIF Partners, Accel Partners and the founders of Snapdeal, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal. At the time, the service offering had grown to 46 categories and 2000+ professionals were registered on its platform. Barely two months later, as UrbanClap expanded to other metropolitan cities in India, the company raised another $10 million, in Series A funding from its existing investors­ SAIF and Accel Partners." This discusses UrbanClap's foundation, history, and products in detail. The article from Entrepreneur notes: "Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services. Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services. All you need to do is place your requirements on the UrbanClap app or website and within short span of time platform will bring these professionals to you. Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals – who together represent the gold standard for trusted services in India. Every month, UrbanClap sends them business worth $200 million annually (current run rate) which include Rs 200 from small carpentry jobs, to a large interior designing assignments worth several lakhs." This provides extensive coverage of UrbanClap's product. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met. I reviewed the current text of the article and do not find it promotional: "UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a 'base of over 20,000 service professionals' who provide labor for UrbanClap's users. As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata. UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016."Cunard (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Above mentioned coverage is nothing but Press or Script given to media by none other than company officials. Company is trying to make Wikipedia as platform for their promotions and nothing else. Above coverage does not provide any depth or significance of the company. It only provide the Grand Saga of IIT and Funding from investors, nothing else. Entrepreneur is known to publish articles for funded company of any kind. Merely being funded by Big Investors does not provide any significance to this company. Merely one of those company who got funded in India.And chosing this Platform as Promotions. similar Deletion like Cashcaro.com, Yourstory, Delhivery and many others. These are nothing but self acclaimed prophetic words by company itself. Speedy delete to this articles. Else Wikipedia have to put Every IIT or funded company as pages here. This is not a directory for Funded company. Used merely for promotions. Tone of the articles written on Enterpreneur or First Post is nothing but higher degree of promotional tone. Tonality of articles is definitely not neutral and all is written about the IIT people and their funding, coverage seems like description of products given by the company people. Light2021 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "Above mentioned coverage is nothing but Press or Script given to media by none other than company officials". The articles are written by independent journalists and Firstpost and Entrepreneur pass Identifying reliable sources; they have editorial oversight at http://www.firstpost.com/about-firstpost and https://www.entrepreneur.com/staff. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral Formerly delete This page is covered by only three sources. The first source is by a specialist source. The other two sources are national source and don't establish world wide notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather it is based upon available sources. Also, topics are not required to possess global notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America1000 02:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Classic case of : Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-edLight2021 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep sources are well above WP:N. They are what appear to be independent, reliable sources and cover the topic in some reasonable degree of depth (or at least the few I looked at did...)    Hobit (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are NO significant value is added except mentioning same thing again and again. all the discussions had happened. it is mere attempt to save this article from deletion. Third time nomination is still proves its non-notability. and this is merely a exercise to extend the discussion. So there will be no consensus an d article will be saved. As done in previous cases. Very dangerous approach to save such articles from Wikipedia. It is to create confusion and nothing else. No Argument to study but just citing sources which discussed in details by contributors. Highly misleading Votes to confuse the closing debate. Light2021 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It meets our inclusion guidelines. That's all that matters (baring a WP:TNT argument of course). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? Three Times nominated. Article is Tagged with " Article is Incomplete" - in fact there is nothing left to write about this one. I gone through all the articles or Press cover for this company. Nothing to write except Funding or Daily operations of this company. It has to wait like next 5 years, if that survive that longer, till that time it does not follow any guidelines except blatant promotions and misuse of Wikipedia. If anything to write about it, I would love to write that article instead writing here! That is the reasons such articles get missed for deletion because of unnecessary extended discussions. all the points has been made by contributors very clear. Not even consensus but arguments does not allow this one to get nominated 4th Times in future. Lots of time has been wasted in three time discussions. Nothing is coming out. Except the waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because what we are discussing is if we should include this, so the only thing that matters are our inclusion guidelines. If WP:NOT and WP:N are met, the only things you are left to argue are WP:IAR and it's close relative WP:TNT.  Only other option is to try to get those guidelines changed.  You are making an IAR argument, which is fine.  But it's not going to carry the day unless you get a large majority on board.  You have not. SwisterTwister has put together a pretty reasonable IAR/WP:N argument.  I don't agree with it here as these sources appear to be reliable. But I've seen arguments that all the coverage is just paid ads pretty often when it comes to Indian companies like this.  My sense is that the coverage is a bit more balanced than you'd expect in an ad and the sources are generally of the highest caliber you'll find in India.  Hobit (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are saying I am just nominating these articles merely merely my subjective notion of subject. Where this is the third time community has nominated this articles. And they would have found any reason for this article to remain, it would have been, on each nominations, this articles kept because of long and unnecessary discussion. it make really confusing for deletion process, and this get to keep end of the day. Citing policies does not help. Can you please cite your sources that covered it in a very journalistic way. And repeated one. Not some operations or funding news. major sources write about such startup, not because they are certified media agencies but blog created by none other than such companies to promote such company, building for search results. and now widely being used as Wikipedia citations. which mislead to the contributors also. there is nothing substantial or notable coverage made by any media. Except one coverage which any company can get if they get funded by investors. Wikipedia is not Newspaper, PRhost or directory. The tag is there as this is incomplete. This article has nothing to write except one paragraph. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Though not as bad as some similar content, I  usually consider any publication on an Indian internet business in a Indian newspaper as being an advertorial, rather than truly independent coverage . The way to tell is to actuallylook at the content in those sources.  DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 17 October 2016 (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.