Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HYPR Corp

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 delete. While I am not aware of any policy or practice that would disallow disclosed paid editors from participating in AFD discussions on their work, consensus here appears to be that the sources presented do not establish WP:NCORP-based notability. Thus this is a delete consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

HYPR Corp

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

HYPR Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article, created and substantially maintained by undisclosed paid editors, still being maintained by disclosed paid editors. When the bad press-release churnalism that the disclosed paid editors keep re-adding is cleared away, there's very little here that shows notability under WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE shows no better. Apart from it being promotional business spam, the company just isn't very famous. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: In working with the COI editor as a non-involved third party reviewer, I assembled a WP:NORG checklist for this article (shown here on the article's talk page). The result of that checklist suggests that the subject might not be notable. Two of the more reliable sources both incorporated interview material from the company's CEO within their articles, and thus were questionable as strong secondary sources — of which, multiple sources must be demonstrated to meet NCORP. The problems with the other strong sources are all described in the checklist. Additionally, performing a cursory search of the term in Google is complicated by the fact that information from a marketing company which produces influencer-type software — a company which is also called HYPR (and even uses a similar font for their name/logo) — those search results from that company populate the top half of the page, interspersed with search results from the subject company. Editors attempting to locate additional information on this company should be aware of that distinction. Regards,  Spintendo  05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• delete per comments on the lack of notability already given. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: eweek article should be considered significant and notable, the article is about hypr technology and services, and its written by senior editor Sean Michael Kernern, I do not think there is any reason to believe he is not reliable. Hypr was covered by wsj on their venture capital section. Duncan Riley, senior writer at SiliconAngle, also covered hypr corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)
    • Note: this editor is the disclosed paid editor on the article in question, now advocating non-RSes to shore up his client's promotion - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - the level of sourcing (present on the current article and off-wiki) indicates this topic is a WP:NCORP failure. While sources are cited and more could be added to the article, none seem to meet the criteria for sources laid down by NCORP; almost all are press releases (considered dependent coverage by NCORP), routine business announcements, funding announcements (considered trivial coverage by NCORP standards), or construable as in-passing mentions. Much of the coverage generated by the topic (this article for example) rely heavily on WP:PRIMARY information (an issue given Wikipedia:Notability#SPIP). In short, the topic has not accrued the necessary level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV, let alone the much stricter NCORP. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: there are still a lot off wiki coverage, for example Peter Cohan analyzed Hypr corp on Forbes, although he is a contributor, his professional career precedes him. Robert Hackett also covered Hypr in his publication. Hypr recently made a research about “Usability of Biometric Authentication Methods for Citizens with Disabilities” which was published in the 2019 IRS Research Bulletin. Tatum Hunter of Built in NYC took notice of Hypr growth. Hypr is part of FIDO Alliance board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)
  • Note: this editor is the disclosed paid editor on the article in question, now advocating non-RSes to shore up his client's promotion - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Note: I don't know what does this upper note means. I am just trying to put the sources on the table to show notability following wikipedia guidelines. This article is not maintanined by undisclosed payment editors as you say and I am not re-adding anything, I did add references once but because you placed a citation needed tag and I thought it was okay to add citations. Kriptocurrency (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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.