Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubhopper (app)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hubhopper (app)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability for corporations

WP:NCORP not sufficiently demonstrated. References provided are a combination of press-releases, advertorials or routine corporate announcements. Lacking independent editorial to establish notability. Looking at the references in detail: (1) PR-piece, (2), advertorial article as evidenced by language like "Anand says", "he adds", "Anand explains", "Anand believes", (3) PR-piece, (4) mention in passing with 'what else is news in app store', (5)-(7) routine corporate announcements (funding), (8) possibly editorial, (9) actually says at the end in bold "Sponsored Content", (10) extremely short basic description, (11) brief mention amongst other apps that launched (page 25 in case anyone is looking), (12)-(13) possible PR piece. The footnote states the text was not edited by Business Standard and taken from a "feed", (14) Syndicated ANI agency piece. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I agree that some of the references can be PR but can't be considered all of them are just a PR-pieces. The company is covered by mainstream media houses in India. Also, Hubhopper received the Problem Solver of the year 2017 award from

The Indus Entrepreneurs and it is one of the World's top 50 social apps. Indeed it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hence, I tend to keep.--RamKaran Parjapati (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be good to have credible evidence for this, though. By what measure is Hubhopper a "top 50 social app"? Having been the most downloaded app in a certain category in a certain month or two does not meet

WP:PERSISTENCE criteria. We'd be looking for some evidence in independent, reliable editorial that supports this statement. If there is evidence of the award from a primary source (i.e. from the award presenter) that may help. So far I have only found the same worded coverage that seems to stem from this agency piece without further editorial coverage. Critically, there is no editorial coverage of Hubhopper in The Time of India, The Hindu, the Economic Times or the Business Standard as shown here, here, here and here. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Non-notable organization. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Although it could change, there is no coverage in major Indian news sources. cnzx (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (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.