Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LetsTrack

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LetsTrack

LetsTrack (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)

Generic startup spam, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator blocked for likely covert advertising, of which this article is an example of. MER-C 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It meets basic WP:GNG and has plenty of references. One reference might be a press release, but a Google news search brings up plenty more references to this company. I will check into this a little more and see if I can improve or add more references. Peter303x (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240528170726[reply]
• Comments. I have done a little more research and revised and added a few things. Mainly it appears that this company is not UK based and a recent article from March 9, 2019 suggests they moved to Gurgaon, India. Original poster must not have seen this. Peter303x (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240528170726[reply]

• Keep. Agree that it meets basic WP:GNG and should not be deleted just yet. The article could however do with a few improvements.--AfPEN (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete in no way does this pass NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have promising coverage in news sources; but I just want to get this !vote in now before the 7 days is up as I don't know when I'll get a chance to improve the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify for incubation - until it can be stabilised enough, at the moment if article creator contributors are unsure on info, no point on keeping in article space. Nightfury 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well established company that is often in the news and who's products are often reviewed. Passes WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. Significant coverage that is beyond trivial. Some of the coverage is recent (past month) Chaos2order (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to have good amount of coverage and as prior editors said, Google news brings up lot's of more references to this company. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The guidelines are clear on the types of references that can be used to establish notability and even though I've now trawled through about 50 references so far, not a single one comes even close. What is clear is that LetsTrack has an active marketing department. Can I ask any of the "Keep" !voters to provide two references that they believe meets the criteria. I draw special attention to WP:NCORP sections WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and also draw special attention to the following: Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 5 April 2019 (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.