Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happn

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happn

Happn (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)

Like with other recent articles of the same subject her at AfD, this one is no different in that Draft:Happn had been started but it was speedied after I caught it, it was blatant advertising and that alone, this one essentially has the same eminence, and despite I listed my concerns here, it was removed with the unconvincing basis of "decline speedy", I still confirm it because what I found from my searches simply found PR and PR-like sources, and that's not surprising because all of this, including the other recent subject articles, seem to be part of an advertising PR campaign, not to mention the sheer persistence of it all (like with my listed PROD, it is certainly concerning when a Draft is advertising, deleted and then actually restarted at mainspace as if nothing). SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article is app for dating which has famous news on nytimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/nyregion/a-dating-app-happn-to-find-a-match-nearby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic has actually received a great deal of coverage in news sources, such as The New York Times, The Telegraph, International Business Times, The Washington Post, and several others. Note the sources denoted below in this discussion. North America1000 09:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CORP from coverage [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Doubtless the deletionists will reply that The Daily Telegraph, widely cited as a newspaper of record, is a "blog"; that an article about how the app is creepy and encourages stalking is "promotional"; that The Economic Times, the #2 business newspaper in the world by circulation, is "churnalism" (though this term isn't anywhere in Wikipedia policy); that stories about large funding rounds are "routine" and "trivial coverage", even though WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't actually say this; that Marie Claire doesn't "count" because it's a women's magazine; that The Independent and The Courier-Mail aren't "real" newspapers; and that this article from the print edition of The New York Times, which was linked and then completely ignored, is... I don't even know, maybe they'll call it a "VaniSpamCruftIsement" or "VSCA". But, hey, what can you do. 99.162.153.185 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - Simply because it's a large number of sources means nothing if they are in fact advertising and PR, and that's what they are; notice how those articles all contain information from the company itself either by a blatant "from the company","company said", etc. None of this will be enough, and there can be no compromises if the basis if still an advertisement especially given the past deletions, I'll then note experiences suggest thus would likely in fact be restarted, simply because that's the nature of PR and it's activities. Simply a note, I find it peculiar you seem so experienced and knowledgeable of Wikipedia and its nature, this suggests peculiarity, especially since there were 2 similar IPs with the same methods and speak within the last 24 hours as it is.... SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry but i have ot note (as was noted in the ANI against you a while back) that I find someof what you say to be entirely incomprehensible. What does "None of this will be enough, and there can be no compromises if the basis if still an advertisement especially given the past deletions, I'll then note experiences suggest thus would likely in fact be restarted, simply because that's the nature of PR and it's activities." mean? 104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To pick the clearest single case, this source (source #3 above) has a headline of "Concerns over dating app’s ‘creepy’ tracker", or (in the HTML title) "Happn dating app: Concerns over app’s ‘stalking issue’ GPS tracking". It then goes on to say:
"CYBER safety experts have warned of the dangers of a dating app which allows its users to track “matches” through the use of GPS. Happn, which is available in the App Store and on Google Play, has been likened to a “more dangerous version of Tinder”. (...) Susan McLean, a police officer for 27 years turned cyber safety expert, told The Sunday Mail that Queenslanders should not be allowing any smartphone app to track ­locality. “Tinder uses location when it shows you that the person is five or 10km away but that’s not like this where it is tracking movement — this is particularly creepy,” Ms McLean said. "It’s dangerous and absolutely has a huge potential to become an issue.""
The claim that this article is "advertising and PR" for Happn is... implausible in the extreme. There are, therefore, only two possibilities. Either deletionists will not look at articles provided as sources, even to spend two seconds glancing at the headline. Or, deletionists believe that all coverage of a business is "advertising and PR", and therefore invalid, even when that coverage describes a business's product as "creepy", "dangerous", and a "safety risk". In either case, there is not much point in having a deletion discussion at all, since people's minds are obviously made up already.
Indeed, I have edited Wikipedia in the last two days with other IP addresses. The change in IPs is not deliberate, my ISP just assigns addresses dynamically. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:D987:B3C7:631D:3031 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an example of an actually non-PR source (and a good repudiation of those who think that it's unreasonable to expect sources not to be inspired by company PR outreach) ... do we have any more? (although the Courier-Mail may well count as a tabloid, and that's not a well-written article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input on the latest sources is desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficient examples of significant coverage in reliable sources have already been put forward in this discussion. The analysis above doesn't make a convincing case to ignore these sources. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And sufficient commentd have stated this article is still an advertisement, especially since a user had the sheerness to restart it despite a past deletion. Simply listing "significant sources" means nothing if the contents themselves are simply republished company information and words. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sheerness'. Just because a draft was deleted due to the content and tone, that doesn't make the subject non-notable. It isn't an advertisement now. It's now two sentences stating basic facts about the subject, so concerns of advertising have been addressed by editing and that is therefore not a reason to delete. Clearly the sources available could be used to expand it into a better article. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tone / promotionalism has been addressed, but the article (two sentences) is now a WP:DIRECTORY listing. Available sourced would not allow expansion (in a neutral fashion) and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of minor companies & their apps. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except...the available sources would allow expansion in a neutral fashion, and it is notable as demonstrated by the available sources. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating there exists sources is not taking away or changing the stated facts this is a restarted advertisement, and it was blatantly and boldly restarted despite the advertising Draft also being deleted, therefore it shows the blatant persistence of why the company wants this advertisement, therefore there are no compromises when it comes to advertising. As such, nothing takes away the soundness of WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but the above statement is entirely incomprehensible.104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you been blocked yet? Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what does that mean?Cabayi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much to say about it now that the promotion was removed. If it lasts more than a couple years, then might be notable some day, but zillions of apps come and go. Too soon for this one. W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not, however, what I showed in my analysis, which showed everything that has been involved this advertising, going as far to state how it was restarted yet again after being deleted before as an advertisement! SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources mentioned by the IP. Several of them (e.g. Economic Times, NYT, Telegraph, The Independent, etc.) are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Simply stating there exists news sources means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and the analyses above have explicitly shown this, so stating they were otherwise acceptable is not only unapplicable but also unconvincing. As I also stated above, there are persistent attempts at restarting this advertisement which is something that should be taken seriously, not "Well.....Hey, there's sources!!" or else it's literally damning the encyclopedia of the original concept it once had and was, deleting this would surely save us yet another wave of restarting attempts, because it's clear to say, this will be started again if the user cared to actually go around Draftspace and publish it themselves (ignoring AfC reviewing that stated it was unacceptable of course)! SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this version of the Wikipedia page is different from the deleted version .plus the new version of page only contains 2 sentences about sayying this app's function and App market.I don't know how your guys think this is an ad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - The user above has been making numerous attempting at repeatedly restoring their several "Keep" votes in an apparent campaign to "save" this article by simply restating what their own beliefs of the article are, however I have repeatedly now changed them to "Comment" instead. Let me also note that the Keep votes are all still simply, not only ignoring the actual concerns listed here, but then simply still basing their comments from existing sources, instead of actually caring to analyze and exhibit their own concerns of the sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agreed Patar knight voice.because as the reason you mentioned above.Tinder(app) Wikipedia page is also unacceptable ,which The app was publicly reported on NYT with "A Dating App, Happn, to Find a Match Nearby" it only tells us what;s the function of happn.obviously it is acceptable and convincing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zhanglei123456, have you been paid or otherwise canvassed to edit this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942 (talk)No I did't get paid for this ,the only reason I create this article is I used this dating app in china ,its a so pop app which it deserve a wikipage with nytimes and other internet news , I just wanna explain why this app is pop in china ,if you cant read Chinese .maybe its time for you to learn chinese, here is the chinese news about the dating app:happn:
  • Delete Per WP:DEL14 This is nothing but WP:CORPSPAM. This is an app which received spiked coverage for a while. There is enormous promo pressure here with the creator using sockpuppets to spam the article. Notability is not the only reason for deletion - borderline notability combined with the intention to use Wikipedia for promotion is a good enough reason as well. Volunteer resources are finite and these articles with borderline notability but promo pressure suck up enormous volunteer efforts. We should not encourage this kind of WP:BOGOF editing as it ultimately increases the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the notion of this mobile app supposedly having received "spiked coverage for a while", this is not the case whatsoever. Note that this app has actually received sustained coverage over the years. For example, notice the dates of publication for the sources below. Note that these are examples, and more sources are available. Also note that the article has absolutely no promotional tone whatsoever at this time. See also WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary". North America1000 09:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOT which saysWikipedia is not...a means of promotion. It doesn't restrict the definition of promotion to simply the style of writing. The intent matters. This was clearly intended to promote the app and get it up on Wikipedia - and if not for outing, I would have presented the evidence here. See also WP:IAR. Just because volunteer editors are available, doesn't mean that they should clean up CORPSPAM. Pushing this burden on volunteer editors is problematic and is encouraging our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it's not about promotional tone. It's about doing the right thing with a focus on the long term. We can continue to encourage and incentivise this kind of BOGOF editing and increase our systemic bias. Or we can take a stand and show that this is not tolerated. I certainly do not want to encourage BOGOF, so I would like this article to be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After u read this,you can decide this article is notable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per wide sourcing. A few editors have been after the article creator, who despite his repeated transgressions is very likely a well-intentioned editotr whose first language is not English. There is a bit of a gang mentality attacking the article creator. they made some mistakes, but let's lighten up on the content that is acceptable-- like this article.104.163.141.133 (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comment from 99.162.153.185 (talk · contribs): The app has received international coverage in publications based in Australia, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The article is neutrally written: That there is "actual off wiki evidence that this is paid editing" does not compel deletion because the article is neutrally written.

    Cunard (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it encourages more undisclosed paid editing, more paid advocacy and a huge burden for volunteers to keep the information NPOV and factual. Done on a large scale this ultimately reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as a source for reliable and NPOV information, because volunteer efforts cannot keep up. When we keep and clean up articles like these, it gives an incentive to undisclosed paid editors to do more of this. Which is why I do not see a good reason to encourage this. I prefer to encourage paid editors to disclose and go through AFC (which is a form of peer review) and work transparently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - At this level, simply tossing a mountain of links is overweighing this overloaded AfD as it is because what takes the serious matter is the fact this has literally been and still is a paid advertising article and there's the manipulation of accounts and hired people to show it above; to analyze the listed sources, they are once again in fact emphasizing and confirming exactly what the nomination and analyses earlier have shown, they are simply republishing advertising the company wants to mention and talk about or then actually simply republishing the company and its employees' own quoted words; none of that is actual journalism, because it simply means republishing their own advertising.
We have seen enough damages to articles because of accepting such advertisements and we seriously have to keep to mind and consider the actual effects of keeping this and saying "Hey, we kept an obviously paid advertisement because it was somewhat changed and some republished PR was offered!". The Keep votes themselves above acknowledge the fact this is still advertising and would still be if changed at all, therefore it shows we cannot confidently keep an article of which no one can honestly improve to a satisfying change. Looking once again at the listed sources, there's even the blatancy of the company blatantly and firming announcing its own business plans and activities, including stating their own thoughts and feelings about said money plans and therefore it shows the blatancy of PR advertising, as if the paid advertising information-article and accounts, shown once again above, are not enough to suggest the said sheer advertising.SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- now that the promotional tone has been removed, the page is literally this:
  • Happn is a mobile dating application[1] developed by FTW & Co. The application is compatible with Android, iPhone[2] and Windows[3].
Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable apps; there's nothing in this AfD that suggests that the article can be developed beyond that in a neutral fashion. Thus, the article should be deleted as created as part of a promotional push and not adding value to the project (and actually detracting from it as evidenced by this extensive AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There has been discussion herein that the creator of this article engaged in paid editing, but no evidence has been presented to qualify the assertion. The article creator, Zhanglei123456 has directly stated above in this discussion that they were not paid to create the article. Furthermore, the undeveloped nature of the article throughout its history is a strong indicator that paid editing has not occurred. It is very highly doubtful that a company would pay for such a tiny, unformatted stub article, which was in this shape before I began some work on it. It is important to not assume that paid editing has occurred (e.g. per this discussion"We can continue to encourage and incentivise this kind of BOGOF editing","this has literally been and still is a paid advertising article...") via proof by assertion claims and personal opinion alone. Furthermore, the article does not have a promotional tone whatsoever. North America1000 07:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Happn&oldid=1089530111"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happn, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.