Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TapWalk

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TapWalk[edit]

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

This is advertising for non-notable software. The only reputable sources are discussing other things , not this application whic his essentially only mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company looks like it's headed for notability, but isn't there yet. At least not with the sources I've been able to find. Everything's a trivial mention or an industry/PR source. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – First off, I think it's important to note that the article is about a company and not specifically a piece of software (as was implied here earlier) – this has important implications for establishing notability. The company in question and its services are discussed in reputable, independent sources. Wikipedia:Notability states that "significant coverage" does not necessarily mean that the topic in question has to be the main topic of the article (and I would argue that with the current articles it is certainly more than just a 'passing mention' as 1) the main topic of each article is directly related to the company and 2) the company is discussed for large portions of each article). The New York Times article talks about the office space that this company occupies and why it is noteworthy (and very unique) that company occupies it (as does The Heights article). The Boston.com article is all about some of the work that the company has done. The Innovation District, Killer Startups, and Events in America (independent sources) talk about the company and why it is unique – with Events in America even specifically stating what the company's CEO thinks about the industry. While a couple of the last ones are industry sources I don't see a problem with them because they are completely independent of the company in question.User:Sergeymann talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. The in-depth coverage is provided by PR sources. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:07, 18 June 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.