Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veho Tech

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veho Tech

[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)

I've been considering a PROD, but given the article in The Information (which I did see is already in the article after my BEFORE) looks like a prima facie "maybe to yes", I've decided that it's sufficiently "potentially controversial" to merit AFD. However, none of the other sources are sufficient to be the second in the multiple required to meet SIRS. Most of them, both inside and out of the article, are the routine reprints of funding and expansion announcements that exist for almost any company that bothers issuing press releases.

It's worth noting there are two articles cited (WSJ, The Technology That’s Helping Companies Thrive Amid the Supply-Chain Chaos; Bloomberg, Couriers Snatch Toehold in Biggest Shake-Up of FedEx Era) plus BusinessInsider's Gig labor could have challenged FedEx and UPS. Now it's making them stronger. mentioning the company in relation to the broader market, however they do not appear to address the company itself in sufficient detail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article per our current criteria.

I do see potential for this to be redirected to Last mile (transportation)#Last mile technology platforms, or a similar article on the intersection of gig economy and that market (the latter of which not yet written, of course, but does appear possilikely to likely a notable topic), so that first redirect would be my proposal for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I appreciate the WP:BOLDNESS for the nominator to begin what may be a controversial nomination with understandable rationales citing guidelines, as well as provide ideas on what to do if the article cannot be kept. With said that, there is a reason this is contestable: the suggestion that a lot of the sources, like the TechCrunch and Denver Business Journal ones, are simply routine announcements that are not independent sources. I am sorry, but [1] and [2] absolutely go above and beyond simply announcing funding, and they ARE independent sources, as they are written by authors not affiliated with the company for reliable sources with no connection to it. Articles like the examples I provide are way more than mentioning a fundraiser, summarizing Veho's place in the market and plans for the future. That is significant coverage. A merge into an article about the Gig economy would not be out of the question, however.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. To meet WP:GNG, we need two in-depth references. One has already been provided by the nominator in the form of The Information article ([3]). Per WP:BASIC, we can combine multiple partial in-depth articles to establish notability. The second reference can be pieced together using partial coverage from WSJ and Bloomberg articles already mention above. This is a major startup by any standard, having received funding from prestigious investors such as Tiger Club firm, Tiger Global Management, and a fund from SoftBank, another major investor. Lastly, this is a unicorn, and in-depth coverage for unicorns almost always exists, as demonstrated by the article already cited (with proper bylines, i.e. articles written by journalists (earned media), not press releases) from publications such as Reuters ([4]), WSJ ([5]), South Florida Business Journal ([6]), Bloomberg ([7]), Denver Business Journal ([8], [9]), TechCrunch ([10], [11]), Boston Globe ([12]), Jacksonville Business Journal ([13]), Orlando Business Journal ([14]), The Heights ([15]), Jacksonville Daily Record ([16], [17]), Hartford Business Journal ([18]), and New York Business Journal ([19]). There more than enough to write and establish the notability of this topic. Vstekrk (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC is for biographical notability. As far as I'm aware, Veho is not a person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the listed references per an earlier discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_few_AfDs_deadlocked_on_source_evaluation_question. - Indefensible (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2023 (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.