Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShopBack

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShopBack

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

utterly trivial firm, $1.1 Million funding, has the usual publicity of an intent-relatedstatup, all of which does not add up to significance. , let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of news articles about it. Funding is irrelevant; it could have been started by someone independently wealthy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NCORP I only see 2 sources in google: [1] [2] all other results appear to be in the search results because they appeared in a sidebar/related articles on the first article. I'm not sure about the reliability of either site, but the articles appear to be substantial enough coverage to make a comprehensive article. WP:CORPDEPTH is met, albeit barely (CORPDEPTH says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.", this has only 2 that I can find). There is information on the main product, founders, funding, WP:AUD: Both sources appear to cover all of Asia, so this is met as well. digitalnewsasia says they're located in Malaysia(same as the article's coverage) in their privacy policy, couldn't find a location for techinasia (though I didn't try very hard). I couldn't find anything to suggest that either source fails WP:ORGIND, whether reliable or not, they do seem to be independent of the subject. Red flags to me: Neither Tech In Asia or Digital News Asia appear to have a wikipedia article (non-notable news sources or not popular enough for someone to make one, not really a good sign either way), techinasia has a statement of ethics page [3], I was unable to find any related page on digital news asia (or anything indicating their editorial oversight policy).

Sources already used in article:

[4] written by an engineering student. The site claims to be "the most authoritative ____" but the site looks very questionable, with an overuse of buzzwords.
[5] company profile site at a startup-incubator, presumably at the founders' university. Let's just call these self-published. Also trivial coverage.
[6] Substantial coverage, but site appears to allow self-publishing. Author also writes for e27, and also attends school at NUS, (see prev link)

~~I may fill in the rest later when I have more time.~~ Nah, I don't care enough to. ― Padenton|✉ 08:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 08:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ShopBack's been featured in The Business Times Singapore, the only daily newspaper in Singapore that focuses on business and financial news: [7]. Business Times (Singapore) has a Wikipedia article, as linked.

ShopBack is also currently working with established organisations like Citibank, Packet One Networks (Malaysia Telco) and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. The article has also been edited to include references for ShopBack's partnership with these organisations. In addition, Citibank, Packet One Networks and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants also have their own Wikipedia articles, as linked. —Lievesun^{[[User talk:Lievesun| 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

@Lievesun:: Your sig's broken. Missing close </sup> tag.

Keep -Agreed, the company has recent news in foreign press and fits general notability standards S3venevan (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a startup with an active P.R. department. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (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.