Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagup (business)

Tagup (business)

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

Non-notable startup that fails the requirements of WP:N: it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, especially when read in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing that does exist is either your typical startup press release churn, university PR sourcing, or run of the mill and trivial. After completing WP:BEFORE, I found no indication that this firm is notable, meaning that we should delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional puff piece. Fails notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Normally I would say we can remove promotional tone, but this one fits the definition of WP:ADMASK by way of this reference which says nothing about the topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments all! I am very new and this is my first Wiki article and I am trying my best to create a page that is non-promotional and verifiable by outside sources. I used the Uptake (business) page as my reference for syntax and content, however, after reading this page over again I can now see how it comes across as promotional and puffy. Am I able to edit the page while in 'subject to deletion' phase to get rid of promotional content and remove the one reference not related to the topic as mentioned by CNMall41's comment? Thank you TonyBallioni for your comments but I do not believe it is PR fluff that I have reference and made sure to not include any content created by the company directly. I believe from reading WP:COMPANY that it meets the notability requirements by having "multiple independent sources" Thank you all for your patience as I learn how to produce appropriate articles on this great platform! ABgeer (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than free to edit the page to remove promotional content. However, you will need more than just "multiple independent sources" to show notability. Please refer to the section on depth of coverage as it will help if you add references that meet this criteria.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help CNMall41. While I do acknowledge that some of the company reference pages are not very 'in-depth' and only reference general company details like location or year of founding, I do believe that this reference here goes into very deep detail and is from a very reputable academic institution. While the other reference are not as in-depth as this one, they do not seem to be bad enough to meet the exception criteria in depth of coverage ABgeer (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]