Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qupital (2nd nomination)

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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qupital

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Can't find anything meeting NCORP, most of the results were the usual ORGTRIV funding announcements. Oddly enough Forbes (Contributor) article was in the regular tab and not News, guess Google is filtering them out now? Results for 橋彼道 (or 桥彼道, they didn't seem to care much) were pretty much the same, Sogou might have been slightly better than Baidu for this one but nothing of note there either. There's an article in Cifnews (雨果网) but it's a paid placement (properly marked, won't bother going into their reliability). I judge WP:NONENG to be very unlikely also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources that were not about funding or partnernship announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) or an interview with the founders that does not provide significant coverage of the company. Qupital (traditional Chinese: 橋彼道; simplified Chinese: 桥彼道) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 30 May 2024 (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.