Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenUp (company): Difference between revisions

OpenUp (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company. Coverage is based on routine funding rounds WP:ORGTRIV. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP OpenUp is a legitimate company. 185.61.69.110 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have !voted twice in this AfD. Only one will be considered when closing. 11WB (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more articles about them. This is just a few. Happiestgir1 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is dead. The second appears to be based entirely on company announcements and reads promotionally as well; not independent. The third source has no byline, is from aan industry publication, and I can find no information about its editorial board/policy; probably not reliable. The fourth, written by “Editorial team”, looks like a paid piece. The fifth is the only potentially-usable source here; although from a university newspaper, it seems to be reliable. However, the article appears to be based entirely on an interview with/quotes from Schelvis, who is an employee of the company. In my view, this does not qualify as independent, significant coverage of the type required by WP:NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first link was presumably supposed to be [1], which also has no byline and is likely a paid piece. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG notability guidelines. The sourcing is limited to routine announcements and minor press coverage, with no evidence of significant, independent, and lasting secondary analysis. Reads more like promotional material than an encyclopedic topic. Herinalian (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote as I was the new page reviewer who marked the article as reviewed. I think I remember speaking to the author somewhere, but I can’t place that discussion unfortunately. My issues with the article were in regards to WP:PROMO and WP: VERIFIABILITY. I must have given the article the benefit of the doubt and as such, marked it as reviewed. I’ve left feedback on most articles I’ve reviewed this month, however it appears I forgot to this time, so I apologise. 11WB (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb I wouldn’t worry too much about it, you correctly noticed that the article has issues and the review is probably within the NPP margin of error. In future, I suggest being more careful with sources: You might want to note the tells for paid/promotional articles I listed above, as these apply across the world. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]