Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upwave

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Upwave

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g 🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]