Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UpCodes

UpCodes

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

A directory-like entry on a private company that launched in 2016. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is PR-driven material based on WP:SPIP sources such as: "Q&A: UpCodes co-founder Scott Reynolds on a new way to look at ... Construction Dive-Aug 23, 2017". WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the Construction Dive article which does seem to be a WP:SPIP source, there's 5 other seemingly quality sources that are independent from the company: TechCrunch, YCombinator, Curbed (owned by Vox Media), American Institute of Architects and ArchDaily.

In addition, there are many similar articles of companies in a similar space (and maybe other spaces, but I'm most familiar with construction-tech these days). Examples include Fieldwire, PlanGrid, FieldLens, Procore and I'm sure there's a lot more. These seem to be of similar encyclopedic content and with a similar amount and quality of citation material. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have an affiliation with the company in this article. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not for the first time, article need to be both "independent from the company" and also "intellectually independent". For example, the NYT might publish, verbatim, a press release. While the NYT is an independent secondary source, independent from the company, the article fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TechCrunch doesn't do it for me. Y Combinator is a sponsor and therefore not independent. It is, however a huge user of wikipedia. The claimed 61,000 page views a month says nothing about the notability of the site or company. Alexa, by the way reports no use of the site, which make a founder's claim suspect in my view. TOOSOON. Rhadow (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, fair point about TechCrunch and YCombinator's relation to it. I suppose the American Institute of Architects would be the strongest independent source. In terms of the traffic numbers, I think Alexa does report use of the site (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/up.codes) and here's SimilarWeb (https://www.similarweb.com/website/up.codes). Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]