Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap for Tap

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. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tap for Tap

[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)

Apparently promotional article about defunct company. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other guideline; coverage in article is press releases of launch announcement, and WP:BEFORE shows nothing, let alone anything of WP:CORPDEPTH. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. Tagged for notability since 2012, no improvement since then; no reasonable prospects for organic improvement. (I'd have PRODed it, but it was PRODed previously.) David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TechCrunch is a reliable source, and the TechCrunch article is a staff-written article rather than a press release. 13:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eastmain: A single article in TechCrunch is not sufficient for WP:ORGCRIT. --hroest 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst: All of the articles cited as references are staff-written rather than press releases, and I think they are collectively enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is yellow-rated on WP:RSP. It is a questionably reliable source. In particular, it fails WP:ORGIND. The cited article is also information solely from the company - it clearly fails to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH; per RSP, Careful consideration should be given to ... what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing - and this appears entirely to be that - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A single article in TechCrunch is not sufficient. --hroest 14:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Much of the coverage cited (or that could be cited, per WP:BEFORE) is run of the WP:MILL press releases or is attributable to the company itself. In addition, few of the sources covering the company's product releases attest to why the company itself is notable when compared to other mobile payment services or add networks. As noted by the nominator, the company is also defunct, and while this point does not determine notability, it does indicate it is unlikely that the existing sourcing issues can be addressed. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2021 (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.