Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaster

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. Dennis - 2¢ 20:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qaster

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

The author self identifies as developer of the product [1], and in the permissions granted on the logo File:Qaster.jpeg. It's been speedied twice before, and is a re-hash of Wiv labs (also speedied twice). Blatant self promotion. Bazj (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is more information coming soon on Qaster's wikipedia page. Citations and references will be added in accordingly. The page is also being linked from other Wikipedia articles in relevant fields. This is not for promotion, it is to include and add in useful information for people browsing wikipedia for topics related to Q&A, Search, Startups, etc.

I was alerted about some confusion occurring with this article entry. I would like to make it very clear that I am not a developer/creator of Qaster. I do work in the startup technology world and am putting together a blog/service that features different emerging startup tech companies. I am working on adding in wikipedia information for the other companies as well. I feel it's important to add more content on wikipedia about useful services like theses ones that don't get much light shined on them. There's around 6 sources right now supporting content in the Qaster wikipedia article. Would it be better to add in more content inside the article related to Qaster or add in more citation sources from the internet which report on its services? Just trying to learn and be cooperative here and hope someone can help.. thank you. Michaelgr43 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your association with this firm further, given that you wrote elsewhere that "people ... ask us why we have a blank page" [2]? AllyD (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and that you claim on Commons to be the copyright holder of the product logo c:File:Qaster.jpeg and the company logo c:File:WIV Labs.jpeg? Bazj (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the product logo, I have been given their permission to use the product logo. I can clear up what I meant in the previous message about my interest in startups and working on my blog. I am focusing specifically on South Korean startups that primarily use English. There is a very large startup economy over there and it is doing well. I've done research and am continuing to do more on the whole startup technology scene over there.. I've found that there are some very interesting companies. I was simply trying to add in information about these companies on Wikipedia because I think people will be interested in them and think it's a shame that many Koreans who work in the English startup scene don't get a fair chance to utilize the English version of Wikipedia. As I mentioned a few weeks back, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn how to correctly enter the best possible entry that I can, following the guidelines. To answer the other question, I said people ask "us" why "we" have a blank page because that was the response I was getting over and over from speaking to different startup employees over there through my research. They clearly are interested in being apart of the encyclopedia but don't really know how. All of the other startups I'd like to add in have credible citations as well. Thank you Michaelgr43 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI artice on a recent start-up venture, with normal start-up postings as references. No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2014 (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.