Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Most "keep" opinions boil down to "renominating this is abusive". Not so; the last AfD had a "no consensus" outcome, so a renomination is quite unproblematic. Accordingly, these "keep" opinions are accorded little weight.  Sandstein  20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanClap[edit]


AfDs for this article:
UrbanClap (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)

So far nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Everytime being saved by citing GNC or vote counts. No improvement and No one bother to care about this one.

Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:

A quote from Alastair Sloan, Newsweek "Wikipedia can be cynically manipulated by companies and...the credibility of the website is, especially in the developing world, a powerful and potentially dangerous tool."

This is the ideal and most notorious case for such highest degree of misuse. Light2021 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 02:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 02:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. For example, here is coverage from the First Post article:

    Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology. After graduating from IIT, Abhiraj went on to IIM Ahmedabad, while Varun joined Qualcomm as an engineer. Eventually, they both joined the Boston Consulting Group. While in the US, a common friend introduced them to Raghav Chandra, an engineer at Twitter who shared their vision.

    After returning to India, the three realised that the industry of local services had seen no innovation for at least a decade, and decided to focus on solving this problem. UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board.

    The organisation grew rapidly as the team grew from 3 to 35 odd members and, by April 2015 UrbanClap raised $1.6 million in the seed round of funding, from SAIF Partners, Accel Partners and the founders of Snapdeal, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal. At the time, the service offering had grown to 46 categories and 2000+ professionals were registered on its platform.

    Barely two months later, as UrbanClap expanded to other metropolitan cities in India, the company raised another $10 million, in Series A funding from its existing investors­ SAIF and Accel Partners.

    This discusses UrbanClap's foundation, history, and products in detail.

    The article from Entrepreneur notes:

    Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services. Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services.

    All you need to do is place your requirements on the UrbanClap app or website and within short span of time platform will bring these professionals to you.

    Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals – who together represent the gold standard for trusted services in India.

    Every month, UrbanClap sends them business worth $200 million annually (current run rate) which include Rs 200 from small carpentry jobs, to a large interior designing assignments worth several lakhs.

    This provides extensive coverage of UrbanClap's product. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met.

    I reviewed the current text of the article and do not find it promotional:

    UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals" who provide labor for UrbanClap's users.

    As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata.

    UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016.

    Cunard (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious to know, how does the Firstpost article contribute towards notability? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same old tactics and references are being used to mislead and building lengthy discusssions with no notability. Sources like Enterpreneur are highly questionable as any one can write about their own startup by themselves. On the other hand One Paragraph about company appear like a profile. and nothing else. ZERO notability for Encyclopedia Material. This is complete non-sense. Created for Their customers gain Online popularity or their Employee or even Investors. Too early to have this article, if in any case it survive. This is blatant degree of misuse citing few references for building Wikipedia articles. As happening these days to compromise all the Wikipedia with such Non-sense .
I highly doubt anyone care about this company or even know about this. Leave the mass popularity, a startup started with few people and now making this page to promote themselves. Where there is nothing to write about this one. What are we building here? One paragraph profile for such companies ?
Light2021 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as please note to closer these are literally the same sources as offered at the 1st AfD and they are still, as I mentioned there, advertising, see my first AfD for statements and analysis. Nothing here has suggested anything else of actual substance, and it's clear the emphasis of advertising is still in the above sources, given it's all information about the company's locations, offices, company information....simply see Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and close we just did this. Nothing has changed (as the nom and supporters acknowledge). We've got sources that meet WP:N and a neutral article that isn't any form of advertising. For more details, see my comments on the last AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only Survived because of Keep voted. Most insignificant, One Paragraph article written to promote company by every means possible. Ever heard SEO and Online Reputation? that is exactly it is all about. Mere article in Wikipedia is highest promotions for such company. Still nothing to write about this one. ZERO encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close Abuse of AfD process to renominate less than a month after a previous discussion. The nomination doesn't even make any sense.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for making Wikipedia Sense: Something from Wikipedia only : "The concept of notability can also be described as a measure of the topic's impact, particularly with biographic articles. Think beyond the mere search for those multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Instead, think like an historian: Why will this topic be remembered? How did it impact the community? What is different now because this happened? How does knowledge about this topic help us to explain the world around us? These notability-proving impacts don't have to be total paradigm shifts in human thought. In short: who cares and why?.

Blatant Misuse of even creating this article in a first place. Only for promotions and nothing else. Wikipedia is compromised with such articles. Light2021 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from
  • "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia"

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).

  • Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
  • Wikipedia is not a vanity site for every person, organization or product that wants to have their own page.
  • No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

  • Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid.
  • Most of the content in an article about an organization should be cited to credible, independent sources that directly support the information in the article, such as scholarly works, books and the media. Per WP:CORP, organizations that have not been covered in-depth by multiple, credible, independent sources do not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

and many more to cite as per Wikipedia. ZERO Encyclopedia notability. No significance. Nothing to write but just one paragraph. What importance does it make here? Light2021 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read out the Media Coverage, What kind of media cover startups in such a manner
  • "Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology." - FirstPost
  • "UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board"

What are we even discussing here? Company operations and Violations, Misuse and highest degree of Abuse on Wikipedia. Nothing to write about it. You can keep going on reading media coverage. It is filled with such coverage. No media can make such coverage or story for such a new insignificant startup, not even known in a smallest community. Light2021 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Reads like a Company Profile. No where it is known Why on earth this makes and Impact on our society for being notable " UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals" who provide labor for UrbanClap's users."

As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata. Light2021 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC) UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016.[reply]

  • Delete -- my comments from the previous AfD still stand: "While the article does not have an obvious "promo vibe" to it, in this revised form it offers no indications of why this company is notable or significant. This is essentially A7 material, a brief corporate blurb. The sources offered (entrepreneur.com, Gadgets Now and Times of India), while secondary, are not reliable for establishing notability. Thus, the article still falls under WP:NOT a promo, as the sole purpose of this article to exist is to promote the company. There's definitely no value to the general reader; it's simply a WP:DIRECTORY listing among other unremarkable companies."
I would also add, that for a non notable entity to have a Wiki article is WP:PROMO in on itself. As this is simply "catalog" material, the sole purpose for the article to exist is to promote the business, as it provides no value to the reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a previous deletion nomination was made for this page only two weeks ago. It's disruptive to renominate after such a short time. It's a waste of the community's time. There's no reason to believe consensus will have shifted in two weeks time. The correct course of action in this situation is to open a deletion review. It's not appropriate to renominate articles until you get the result you want. Wait a few months instead, or better yet, open a deletion review. In the mean time, this discussion should be speedily closed so as not to encourage this type of behavior. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
even you put your efforts writing more about this one. How far did you go? Few investment mention and One Paragraph. This is A7 Matrial with Speedy deletions now. High degree of blatant promotions. There is no change, and not even improve in article. and not it will be. Waste of renominating again where such Spam should be speedy deleted. Light2021 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you've been reminded on numerous occasions, articles cannot be speedily deleted if they've survived a prior AFD discussion. Urbanclap has survived three. So yeah. Not going to happen. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and reads like a press release; WP:Promo and WP:Corp apply. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Superficial referenciness is provided solely by churnalism. There's nothing substantive in the way of actual independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four AFDs in last 6-months (two in last 14 days) is definitely disruptive and abuse of the afd process. Nothing has changed since last discussion (neither the nomination rationale nor the arguments). Consensus is very unlikely to change in such a short span of time. CLOSE. Anup [Talk] 23:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on not changing anything. This article has become a Paragraph. you can ask yourself one Good question. On what ground this 1 Paragraph article written like a Business Profile in Bloomberg makes it Encyclopedia material. And where there is seriously nothing to write about this one from collective news coverage. High degree of promotions. Proof 4th Time we need to think this as corporate spam (from other as well). TooSoon is applied on this one. Why so hurry to writing this article. Let the company grow into something significant. Wikipedia has no deadline. Right now it is Blatant Promotion building SEO and Online reputation and nothing else. That is what changed in this time. Light2021 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Clear abuse of the AFD process - Nominating 3 weeks after the 3rd AFD closing is as disruptive as it gets!, That aside Google brings up tons of sources, Granted not all would be reliable sources however most are, Meets GNG. –Davey2010Talk 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:not so; the last close was "No consensus" A no-consensus close can be relisted at any time, though it is advised not to relist immediately because there is more hope of getting consensus after an interval. ) a month is generally considered a suitable time. The relist was not abusive , but the proper thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can immediately be renominated if the previous AFD had little to no participation however if the last AFD had alot of participation then they shouldn't be renominated so quickly, 3-5 months is more or less considered fine however 3 weeks generally isn't. –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are mere "Bad Faith" and personal. As you have done previously or in ANI. Your Speedy Keep is just one of them on this one (1 Paragraph with zero notability). Even you can give lecture on things as if you know it all. Please consider the Senior Admins for that matter if not me. They have expertise and experience unlike your or me. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments aren't bad faith at all, With the greatest of respect I've been at AFD for the past 3-4 years so I can safely say I know alot more than you, We're all knowledgeable as each other - Being an admin doesn't mean you're an expert so to speak, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELAFD, part of the Deletion policy page, states: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. North America1000 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting one paramount principle of Wikipedia, just citing from Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - "Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia". On specific note to this article DGG stated below (as being senior and experienced Admin) very clearly. All these nominations were not in best interest. I agree with him. or One Important question for you as well as you also being an Admin :" Do you by any means think this article is worth keeping?" Thanks.Light2021 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.As for the merits: no newspaper story about a small business in an Indian journal can be treated as a reliable source for notability--they are basically entirely promotional, to the extent Iwould hesitate to call them even advertorials. The prooof of this is incomparing the material to the companies own admitted press releases and websites, for the say the same thing. I would really like to have some reliable sources in the fields of business and entertainment available fro that area, so we could write decent articles for the companies that are worth it.Of the previous afds for this article: The first was closed without explanation as keep when there were equal arguments on each side. The second was closed as speedy keep when nobody except the nom. showed up. That is not how we close in such cases--it should have been a nonconsensus. Tje fird was closed non-consensus. Do we have what should have a series of co nonconsensus closes. It is time to decide whether the prupose of wikipedia is to be a business directory or an encyclopedia. (After all, we decided way back at the beginning, when we adopted the fundamental policy WP:NOT, & it's time we stopped ignoring it.) DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. And the subject-specific notability guidelines are a big part of the problem her, in that they are perfectly crafted for building a directory and entirely divorced from actual sourcing or indeed sourceability. I suspect this actually goes back to the School Wars, where it was decided by default that senior schools are "inherently notable". Guy (Help!) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as you may remember, that was in large part my proposal, but it was a proposal for a compromise based on the need to avoid the dozens of daily discussion of senior and elementary schools. It was based on purely practical considerations as an empiric way of deciding, not any principle I would call notability . I support similar compromises elsewhere, and if we had one on companies, it would eliminate about 1/4 of the AfD workload. I don't know how to construct one for websites. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it well, and as a solution to endless drama it worked excellently. It did not fix the problem of a cadre of editors who thought that completeness of coverage took precedence over actual sourcing, and that was my point. That's where the rot set in. It's just about acceptable for schools. Even if football match reports in local papers are a lousy basis for an article on an institution, nobody really gains or loses by inclusion. Once you get to commercial entities the game is different, and the variation in significance between companies is also probably greater than tat between schools (mine was over a thousand years old and educated a Pope and a Lucasian professor of Mathematics, I like to think that puts it at the upper end). Schools don't pay PR agencies to place football reports, companies pay them to place press releases. Churnalism is a real problem for Wikipedia as a large number of mentions used to establish notability genuinely are simply press releases. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close-Abuse of AfD process to renominate a particular article successively.I don't belive the general consensus swings so fast. The nomination looks hollow- the rhetoric appeals a lot but speaks lot less.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clear abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. First make a wikipedia article, then use it for SEO. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion of a non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indication of notability. Times of India, Economic Times, and Business Standard are notorious PR blogspam hosts used by startups. Note the spinoff domains and non-staff editors, as well as the promotional tone. These are not independent sources, they don't talk about something the company has actually done besides simply existing. Even if they weren't paid PR, they do nothing to establish notability, since existing is not a free pass for GNG. Note to closer - Be very careful about how you weight these responses, given the general lack of familiarity with the surreptitious PR work. Jergling (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a good look at the sources and I'm sorry, but they do not satisfy WP:CORPIND. For example, the Firstpost source is entirely written by the co-founder. And yet, we have people quoting it for notability (This points to a greater problem here - editors do not inspect the source. They just look at a source and think it is OK. I find this pretty bad because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we are supposed to hold stuff to an academic standard here. We definitely need to be sceptic about sources and analyse them carefully.) The sources in Times of India/Economic Times (all part of the same media group) are not useful either - they are either interviews of the founders or routine news about the company mergers/finances. The Hindu businessline source is a very brief coverage with stuff like Those who wish to avail themselves of this service can log on to the app, place a request for Save Water Mumbai, and they will be visited by trained plumbers from UrbanClap who will fix the leaking taps. The activity will run for a week, until Friday, April 22nd. - like someone didn't even bother to redress the press release. There is nothing here which substantially focuses on the company and explains why it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1224033409"