Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotap

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.  Sandstein  17:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cotap (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)

Nonnotable startup. The sources are PR and two huge promo pieces by the same friendly author. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• I'd agree. Unless this is going to be written without anyone's opinion, for or against the company, then Wikipedia is merely acting as a PR channel for Cotap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.164 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — 213.121.241.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Cotap is spamming. I got it. Should be noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len0811 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Len0811 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

<Note the previous two editors have made no edits other than to come onto Wikipedia to push that Cotap is a spamming company. Also an external thread encouraging people to come to Wikipedia on this exists offsite here. These "votes" appear to based on spamming information being deleted from the article due to unreliable sources and encouragement on this offsite forum.> Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, block both the IP and Len0811, and semi-protect the article - Bad-faith nomination. Subject is notable, given the fact the article, stub as it is, has six sources. IP and Len0811 have been canvassed from off-site. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jéské Couriano, you know better than that: there can be no "Speedy Keep" in a case like this, where it is not obvious that the sources are good and discuss the topic in-depth, and the subject notable. The article is now semi-protected. If need be we'll do the same with this AfD discussion, but I think we can handle this, and the closing admin will see the votes for what they're worth. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given half the "six sources" are the same writer writing for the same publication, and that of the other three, one is just a paragraph long and another includes an affiliate sales link, no, it is far from certain that this thing pass WP:NCORP, much less that the nomination was in bad faith. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This comment may be more appropriate for a notability guideline talk page, but from what I can tell, the claim to notability that's independent of the app itself (which, if that's what's notable, should be the subject of an article, not the company) is that the company has raised money. Every time a tech company attracts investors it's the subject of a few blogs (techcrunch, etc.) and those blog posts are routinely used to justify keeping the article on Wikipedia. Is receiving money a claim of notability that merits a stand-alone article? Otherwise all the article says is that it published an app. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See sources added in comment below that show that there has been substantial coverage since the company's founding and funding. Usterday (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and SNOW Close: Obviously meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per the already existing six citations alone. Not only has the nominator unilaterally discounted those, further WP:BEFORE was not done either; has tons of additional significant coverage in WP:RS: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'unilaterally discounted' is a weird language. I am entitled to my opinion to discount them as promo stuff. If you are telling me that there is a battle for this article and nobody found better sources, then the notability is dubious, and throwing in numbers of press-releases irrelevant for wikipedia. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There wasn't a "battle" for the article (and I never said or remotely implied there was) until you AfDed it; it already had notability and you failed to do WP:BEFORE, as I mentioned above. As for the current six citations, none of them are press releases, and all but one are significant coverage. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there was a considerable amount of edit-warring in May and June that led to the page being protected. There are folks who are angered by Cotap's marketing [2] and who would like this information to be included in the page. However, there is no RS for that information (that I can find, and as you noted in your edits). Looking at the article's history, I'm guessing that some of the participants work for the company and have been reverting these non-RS edits (appropriately). However, if an RS is created with this information, then it will need to be included in the article. LaMona (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The article has been off-wiki canvassed negatively and help has been requested to come and edit it negatively and/or disparage it: [3]. Note one post reads: "I think the best thing would be for the article to be deleted and if Cotap get another article up, then that should be deleted too." Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. This article is about a relatively new company that is probably "pre-revenue" and that has a software product that appears to be out in beta to a few customers. Like many startups that have gotten funding, this could be the next big thing or six months from now it could have faded into dot-com history. Announcements of funding are generally considered 'business as usual', and don't accord notability unless they are stunningly unusual -- and this seems to be within the norm for tech startups. I just don't see enough to meet wp:corp at this time. LaMona (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears you have not actually done any research into Cotap other than read its Wikipedia page. There are many other substantial references that have evolved since early 2014, see as follows: a December 2014 article in TechCrunch, an August 2014 article in VentureBeat, another one in GigaOm, another here in 2014, and so forth. So no, it didn't "fade into history" as you've put so pejoratively. When you do no further research into an entry other than what its own Wikipedia page says, you cannot make such sweeping generalizations as "it's probably "pre-revenue"". Did you read that somewhere; can you prove it? What does that have to do with GNG? Your argumentation seems very lax, but if you have evidence to prove your point I'd be very happy to hear it! Otherwise, please review the additional sources that disprove your assertion that nothing has been written since the company's founding. Usterday (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Weak Keep - Following my comment above and largely in line with LaMona's rationale. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched weak delete to weak keep. It's not as much of a slam dunk as the aghast tone of much of this AfD suggests (it sounds like there may be some other conflicts regarding this article/company in play), but it does look like there's enough to satisfy GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Obvious attempt by offline sources to manipulate Wikipedia in order to spite this company for a few emails they received that they didn't like. Really atrocious that anyone would allow such plain, biased nonsense to occur on Wikipedia. Even a deletionist should see that. Keep also per SoftLavender's argumentation. This is ridiculous. Usterday (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 22 August 2015 (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.