Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QiK Stay

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. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QiK Stay (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)

non notable and promotional. The refs are mostly from their own web site, with an additional one used several times from a promotional interview in a newspaper Getting such interviews is the job of a PR agent, but we shouldn't be considering them as showing anything other than the competence of the pr agent. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as another excellent example of AfD material, simply not convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple locations and secondary source coverage gives it notability. In veritas (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – See WP:NEXIST. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weaker than average level. Copy edit the article to address promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could those arguing to keep please give a couple of examples of which sources they believe establish notability? When I do a google search, the first page of results brings up:

1. Their own website
2. Linkedin
3. Angel List (a venture-capital site)
4. The Qik Stay app in the Google Play app store
5. A Tech Portal press release about a $250k seed round
6. Twitter
7. A blurb on Inc42, which describes itself as dedicated to obsessively profiling startups
8. A perfunctory listing on bloomberg.com
9. A perfunctory listing on Crunchbase
10. Seed round press release on vccircle.com

None of these establish notability. They're all either social media, self-published, or routine listings of a trivial ($250K is trivial) seed round funding on sites dedicated to covering such business announcements. This is a tech startup that got seed round funding less than a year ago. Startups like that are a dime a dozen. Come back in a couple of years when there's real coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, at this point notability has not been supported by reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Here's some sources. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weak level. If the article is deleted, then that's the way it goes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability cannot be determined by a google search. Its obvious that pages hosted on popular sites (like social media or AngelList or TechCrunch) with huge international traffic [higher domain authority] will be given preference by Google over news portal catering to only Indian News, with traffic coming from only India [lower domain authority]. And this is the case with other Indian startup pages as well. For example, Oyo Rooms, which is in the same space, has first page google listing of its website, social media and app store links. There is only one notable mention, at the BOTTOM of the page, which is from Forbes, a website with international traffic. It can be said that the page in question (qikstay) is notable on the India level, though not on international level, but is still notable. Hence, should be kept.--Mayank91Anand (talk) 10:37, 29 April 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.