Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipmunk

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. Sandstein 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hipmunk[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. Has been acquired by a much larger Concur Technologies where the subject is not mentioned, so not a suitable redirect target. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep, advertorial is the right word for it. bunch of self-sourced stuff aimed at selling ads on the site. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG (article cites non-trivial coverage from the New York Times, VentureBeat, TIME etc.). I just cleaned up the article a little regarding tone issues; a bit more can be done still in that regard, but this doesn't warrant outright deletion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the coverage, such as it is, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely PR-driven. Some samples:

The NYT source is a blog, which is insufficient for notabily.
The Time article is "The 50 Best Websites of 2011" -- being on a list with 50 other sites is not WP:SIGCOV and is a strong indicator that, at that time, it was WP:TOOSOON for an article.

Other sources are likewise unconvincing and / or routine notices, such as:

"Hipmunk's profile on DoubleClick Ad Planner" -- obvious advertisement.
"How does hipmunk get their flight data?" from Quora.com, which is user generated.
Venturebeat is so indiscriminate, as to not count for notability.
Etc.

Yes, the startups generate a lot of press, but we need to look at depth of coverage, which is lacking here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per K.e.coffman, Listing articles are generally not RS and the rest are a mix of blogs. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and specifically WP:ORGIND per the refs. scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2018 (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.

Plenty of notable coverage now that it’s too late, e.g. https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/travel/article/Hipmunk-the-site-that-revolutionized-airfare-14980702.php — FlashSheridan (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]