- 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uber (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Deelte. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy snow close - bad nom, please use WP:BEFORE.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Plenty of sources to assert notability. White 720 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:There are refs to support notability. Does read like promotional material, so should be cleaned up for POV and promotion.--NavyBlue84 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is sourced, stylistic issues can be fixed. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about a taxicab business that started in 2011. The gimmicks that got it a flurry of startup coverage are using fancier cars, and a mobile phone application that is used to summon the cabs and allows the passenger to track his summoned cab moving through the streets. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while these aspects of this business are verifiable, I don't believe they represent the sort of lasting achievement that makes this business an appropriate subject for a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion about Uber is noted, but the press coverage of the company makes it notable. This is a company that provides a new way of reserving and charging for transportation — not according to me, but according to many reliable sources which are cited in the article. When the child in Africa receives his Wikipedia disc a few years from now, he'll want to know about how two entrepreneurs challenged a century-old industry. White 720 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's apparently yet to be seen whether this business is even operating legally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legality is not a requirement for a business to have a Wikipedia article. To the contrary, Uber's legal challenges so far have actually made it more notable. White 720 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the courts rule that the business plan was in fact illegal --- which seems inevitable; in the USA, taxicab licenses are usually state monopoly privileges granted by local governments, and zealously guarded by licensed operators in the purest form of rent-seeking --- all that will be left is a business notable for one event, that operated for maybe a couple years. While notability is not temporary, this business will be. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for agreeing that the subject of this article is notable — and not just for one event, but for its introduction, subsequent expansion, and challenges. However, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to discuss the legality of a business. Blogs and newsgroups work better for that purpose. White 720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other online businesses that have operated on shaky legal ground: Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, Paypal, Airbnb, VRBO, RelayRides, Full Tilt Poker, BetonSports, All Headline News, Moreover Technologies, Wikileaks, google, and YouTube. Point? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for agreeing that the subject of this article is notable — and not just for one event, but for its introduction, subsequent expansion, and challenges. However, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to discuss the legality of a business. Blogs and newsgroups work better for that purpose. White 720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the courts rule that the business plan was in fact illegal --- which seems inevitable; in the USA, taxicab licenses are usually state monopoly privileges granted by local governments, and zealously guarded by licensed operators in the purest form of rent-seeking --- all that will be left is a business notable for one event, that operated for maybe a couple years. While notability is not temporary, this business will be. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legality is not a requirement for a business to have a Wikipedia article. To the contrary, Uber's legal challenges so far have actually made it more notable. White 720 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's apparently yet to be seen whether this business is even operating legally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion about Uber is noted, but the press coverage of the company makes it notable. This is a company that provides a new way of reserving and charging for transportation — not according to me, but according to many reliable sources which are cited in the article. When the child in Africa receives his Wikipedia disc a few years from now, he'll want to know about how two entrepreneurs challenged a century-old industry. White 720 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose my point is this one. We have a startup business of dubious legality, one that steps on the toes of highly motivated people. What notability they have is largely the result of controversy they brought themselves because of flaws in their business plan. It doesn't relate to issues of general public concern like the Napster startup did. At this point, I'd question whether the controversy has enough legs to turn this business into one whose notability will be undimmed by time. I don't feel all that strongly about the current version, but I'd still wait and see at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're either misreading things or perhaps you're not properly framing this article within its subject area. Online consumer tech, "dot com" if you will but these also include mobile-based businesses like Uber, is a major sector of the US economy, and the venture capital startup mill is a huge business in its own right, $30B+ invested in 2011. Uber is one of the most prominent of the new pack. It has received $40M+ funding from top tier venture firms and a "who's who" (per the sources) of prominent tech angel investors. It's operating internationally - not only San Francisco, Boston, New York, DC, LA, etc., but also Toronto and Paris. It gets written up on a daily basis within the technology and general business press, not primarily for its local regulatory difficulties. One could not have a broad encyclopedic understanding of the tech startup world without considering this company and its peers. Within that world, not knowing about Uber would be considered a mark of ignorance. The notability standards are designed to catch companies like this, even for people who don't know the subject area. It clearly passes the objective test in WP:CORP for having multiple mentions in independent reliable sources, as there are hundreds of them on a variety of issues (for the most part, not the local regulatory challenges) for three years, 2010 through 2012. The real question isn't whether the sources establish notability, as they clearly do. The question is why, despite the article clearly meeting the objective notability standards, there might be an argument that it is not worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Opining that the business plan is faulty or that the company will soon go out of business (a gripe you hear about the entire business sector, and remains to be seen) isn't really pertinent. The claim that all of the coverage is of a single legal problem is simply not true. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I keep coming back to is "startup." Wikipedia is not a directory of new business ideas, whether they are promising or dubious. We wait to see whether startups have significant impact or fizzle. No amount of startup-related buzz is going to get around that. I wouldn't propose deleting it with prejudice, even. It's still just an original idea; nobody knows if it will work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're either misreading things or perhaps you're not properly framing this article within its subject area. Online consumer tech, "dot com" if you will but these also include mobile-based businesses like Uber, is a major sector of the US economy, and the venture capital startup mill is a huge business in its own right, $30B+ invested in 2011. Uber is one of the most prominent of the new pack. It has received $40M+ funding from top tier venture firms and a "who's who" (per the sources) of prominent tech angel investors. It's operating internationally - not only San Francisco, Boston, New York, DC, LA, etc., but also Toronto and Paris. It gets written up on a daily basis within the technology and general business press, not primarily for its local regulatory difficulties. One could not have a broad encyclopedic understanding of the tech startup world without considering this company and its peers. Within that world, not knowing about Uber would be considered a mark of ignorance. The notability standards are designed to catch companies like this, even for people who don't know the subject area. It clearly passes the objective test in WP:CORP for having multiple mentions in independent reliable sources, as there are hundreds of them on a variety of issues (for the most part, not the local regulatory challenges) for three years, 2010 through 2012. The real question isn't whether the sources establish notability, as they clearly do. The question is why, despite the article clearly meeting the objective notability standards, there might be an argument that it is not worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Opining that the business plan is faulty or that the company will soon go out of business (a gripe you hear about the entire business sector, and remains to be seen) isn't really pertinent. The claim that all of the coverage is of a single legal problem is simply not true. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of sources demonstrate notability Zad68 (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am admittedly reluctant to disagree with Smerdis of Tlön, as his decisions in deletion debates are (from what I've seen) almost always right. With respect, I am leaning towards keeping this article, because I believe the sources have established notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Impact is definitely a thing to consider, but I still think that notability has been established. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: actually, the notability of the company in the article is derived from one of its products. This is a very bad practice that should not be endorsed, as the notable element in this case is (if any) the software (service) itself. The company itself has nothing to prove its notability except for regular financial noise that doesn't actually show any kind of notability: the companies are supposed to make profit, thus being profitable as many others is nothing special. Otherwise any company mentioned in www
.killerstartups .com or whatever similar resources automatically becomes notable, which is quite damaging for Wikipedia, as such position spawns endless similar articles about some companies that are just financially successful. If absolutely needed, the company background can be added to the article about the product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we move "Uber (company)" to "Uber (service)" so that the service is the subject of the article instead? White 720 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell what the argument is. Nearly any web service (e.g. Yelp, Inc., OpenTable, LinkedIn, eBay, Amazon.com) exists simultaneously as a website or mobile application and as a company. Wikipedia is not consistent on whether these are titled or described as a service offering or as a business entity. Actually, that's true of lots of brands as well - are we talking about the product / service, or the company that produces it? It's a distinction without a difference, as these online companies are each a single distinct subject. In a few rare cases, e.g. google, they get so big and multifaceted that their service offerings get their own articles Google Search, youtube, etc. Incidentally, there is a lot of sourcing here not only about the Uber service but the company behind it (funding, how it was founded, its strategic decisionmaking). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With each of these entries it is trivial to determine the topic: company (BTW, should be deleted, article on web site should be created), service, service (wrong infobox though), company (notable), company (notable). The eBay and Amazon services are actually not notable apart from respective businesses (they are plain archetypal auction services), which is the opposite situation to what we see here. Remember, our decisions have an impact on the whole project, as they get referenced in future discussions and end up being a practice, so it is a good time to stop and think, whether the current situation of a complete mess is acceptable from the position of its long-term impact. And no, this article shouldn't be moved to Uber (service), it should be deleted and Uber (software) or Uber (service) created with clean history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on Yelp should be deleted too? eBay is not a notable web service? That's certainly a novel approach to notability. I won't debate the merits of the proposal, but things like that are more apt to get a hearing at Village Pump than in deletion discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My position (apart from other articles' evaluation) exactly corresponds to WP:PRODUCT, which requires the proper separation between products and producers and forbids deriving producers' notability from that of products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Shall we move Uber (company) to Uber (service), then? Would the latter article be allowed to exist? White 720 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the matter of naming, it's the matter of topic: the article on Uber (company) can't exist per WP:NCORP unless this company is notable with no regard to its products (like eg. Apple, Miscrosoft, Red Hat, etc.). If both the article is moved and rewritten to be about the service, it's OK. Though I think that keeping the edit history of the article about unnotable company is damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to naming one way or another, because both the service [2][3][4] and the company that makes it[5][6][7] are clearly notable, but as with most of these online companies best covered in a single article. It would be useful if there were a uniform naming convention across Wikipedia for online service companies, or to enforce one if it already exists. It would also be helpful to expand WP:CORP to specifically address venture startups, or WP:WEB to include services and not just content. But that's a job for a wikiproject, not a deletion discussion, and not terribly germane here. The company passes the general notability guideline by a mile per the sourcing, and in substance it's a worthwhile topic for any interested lay reader who wishes to develop a comprehensive encyclopedic understanding of American business. The business press certainly thinks so, they have covered this company continually and extensively since its founding. It's hard to fathom why we're even discussing this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the matter of naming, it's the matter of topic: the article on Uber (company) can't exist per WP:NCORP unless this company is notable with no regard to its products (like eg. Apple, Miscrosoft, Red Hat, etc.). If both the article is moved and rewritten to be about the service, it's OK. Though I think that keeping the edit history of the article about unnotable company is damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Shall we move Uber (company) to Uber (service), then? Would the latter article be allowed to exist? White 720 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My position (apart from other articles' evaluation) exactly corresponds to WP:PRODUCT, which requires the proper separation between products and producers and forbids deriving producers' notability from that of products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on Yelp should be deleted too? eBay is not a notable web service? That's certainly a novel approach to notability. I won't debate the merits of the proposal, but things like that are more apt to get a hearing at Village Pump than in deletion discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With each of these entries it is trivial to determine the topic: company (BTW, should be deleted, article on web site should be created), service, service (wrong infobox though), company (notable), company (notable). The eBay and Amazon services are actually not notable apart from respective businesses (they are plain archetypal auction services), which is the opposite situation to what we see here. Remember, our decisions have an impact on the whole project, as they get referenced in future discussions and end up being a practice, so it is a good time to stop and think, whether the current situation of a complete mess is acceptable from the position of its long-term impact. And no, this article shouldn't be moved to Uber (service), it should be deleted and Uber (software) or Uber (service) created with clean history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell what the argument is. Nearly any web service (e.g. Yelp, Inc., OpenTable, LinkedIn, eBay, Amazon.com) exists simultaneously as a website or mobile application and as a company. Wikipedia is not consistent on whether these are titled or described as a service offering or as a business entity. Actually, that's true of lots of brands as well - are we talking about the product / service, or the company that produces it? It's a distinction without a difference, as these online companies are each a single distinct subject. In a few rare cases, e.g. google, they get so big and multifaceted that their service offerings get their own articles Google Search, youtube, etc. Incidentally, there is a lot of sourcing here not only about the Uber service but the company behind it (funding, how it was founded, its strategic decisionmaking). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Uber (company) notable for? I see no evidence that the company (as opposed to service) passes WP:NCORP (WP:GNG is not a prequisite here). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company is notable, among other things, for raising a lot of money from top tier venture capital firms, having an "a list" of private investors, its structure and relationships with partners, the way it was founded and for what reason, the founders themselves and their role in the company, its business strategy, marketing decisions, etc., and the evidence for this is that all of these are covered extensively in major independent reliable sources, e.g. New York Times, as well as the trade publications that cover general business and tech startups, e.g. techcrunch. Coverage of the objections from local regulators go both to the product and the company. Some sources cover it as a flaw in the product, others as a deliberate decision by the company and founders to challenge and change the way this particular business is done in America. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are two arguments put forth in support of the deletion of the article. Firstly it is argued that the long-term importance of Uber is uncertain. While this might be true it doesn't affect the notability in the wikipedia sense, either the current coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG or it is not. It doesn't matter if the coverage is the result of startup controversy. If the coverage in reliable sources is deemed substantial there is no case for deletion. Secondly it is argued that the notability of the company and the service should be separated. This is clearly not a straightforward question and a move to Uber (service) needs to be discussed further within the relevant wiki-projects as Wikidemon suggests. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (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.