Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Kooki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 01:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We Are Kooki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only reference is a PR piece. Non notable company. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG; only source I can find for this is the Guardian piece, which, one way or another, isn't reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I found a HuffPost[1] story on Kooki, their app, which may be slightly more notable, but still not enough coverage right now to keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7 criterion: no claim of significance (the fact that Guardian accepted their quote can't be held for such claim). Nowhere close to satisfying WP:NCORP and promotional in tone. In the end, this is a a company with no notable products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some irony in the fact that of the only two sources claiming this app to be "best of London apps" one is US-based and another provides advertising as publishing press releases and writing paid news items. Both items are published after this AfD began, BTW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of the sources suggest that this company is notable. NB: I did decline the speedy deletion, as some significance was asserted, even if notability was not established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just of curiosity: in your opinion, how is significance asserted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they did win a contest. See the thread about this on Lady's talk page. I also initially tagged this page with a db-corp tag, but that was based on the Guardian thing appearing to be just an entry into the contest, not as an actual winner of it; Lady corrected me and declined my speedy. Anyway, I'd say that winning a contest is significant enough to pass the A7 test, although only just. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the logic: the link goes to one of several contestants. Furthermore, the notice on the sidebar says that Guardian's review results in featuring the entry. As one may notice following this link, this just didn't happen. In fact the reference leads to the form, filled by the company's CEO and (as of now) not approved by Guardian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, to be honest, I didn't really put that much thought into accepting Lady's rationale. My initial nom was based on a misreading of the contest rules, where I thought the contest hadn't ended yet and so the company couldn't possibly have won it; after talking to Lady I took another look and saw that I was mistaken about the rules, so I went with it without much further thought. Between AfD or CSD, it's not really a big deal; it gets just as deleted either way. (Technically, AfD is more deleted, if you want to pick nits). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the logic: the link goes to one of several contestants. Furthermore, the notice on the sidebar says that Guardian's review results in featuring the entry. As one may notice following this link, this just didn't happen. In fact the reference leads to the form, filled by the company's CEO and (as of now) not approved by Guardian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they did win a contest. See the thread about this on Lady's talk page. I also initially tagged this page with a db-corp tag, but that was based on the Guardian thing appearing to be just an entry into the contest, not as an actual winner of it; Lady corrected me and declined my speedy. Anyway, I'd say that winning a contest is significant enough to pass the A7 test, although only just. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just of curiosity: in your opinion, how is significance asserted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found an article saying that this company was part of University College London and the European Regional Development Fund [2], chosen for their innovative business model. I'll add reference to main entry, suggest we keep for now. — 94.194.62.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- And how does this help with notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking indepth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with user 94.194.62.101. Keep this for now. It can be improved. Limemine (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable company with no realiable information to back up the existence of the article. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.