Happn

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

Like with other recent articles of the same subject her at AfD, this one is no different in that Draft:Happn had been started but it was speedied after I caught it, it was blatant advertising and that alone, this one essentially has the same eminence, and despite I listed my concerns here, it was removed with the unconvincing basis of "decline speedy", I still confirm it because what I found from my searches simply found PR and PR-like sources, and that's not surprising because all of this, including the other recent subject articles, seem to be part of an advertising PR campaign, not to mention the sheer persistence of it all (like with my listed PROD, it is certainly concerning when a Draft is advertising, deleted and then actually restarted at mainspace as if nothing). SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article is app for dating which has famous news on nytimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/nyregion/a-dating-app-happn-to-find-a-match-nearby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Delete G11, blatant advert like many of this author's other articles. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no article there - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; nothing to establish notability or significance at this time. The app is getting some buzz in blogs, but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CORP from coverage [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Doubtless the deletionists will reply that The Daily Telegraph, widely cited as a newspaper of record, is a "blog"; that an article about how the app is creepy and encourages stalking is "promotional"; that The Economic Times, the #2 business newspaper in the world by circulation, is "churnalism" (though this term isn't anywhere in Wikipedia policy); that stories about large funding rounds are "routine" and "trivial coverage", even though WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't actually say this; that Marie Claire doesn't "count" because it's a women's magazine; that The Independent and The Courier-Mail aren't "real" newspapers; and that this article from the print edition of The New York Times, which was linked and then completely ignored, is... I don't even know, maybe they'll call it a "VaniSpamCruftIsement" or "VSCA". But, hey, what can you do. 99.162.153.185 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - Simply because it's a large number of sources means nothing if they are in fact advertising and PR, and that's what they are; notice how those articles all contain information from the company itself either by a blatant "from the company","company said", etc. None of this will be enough, and there can be no compromises if the basis if still an advertisement especially given the past deletions, I'll then note experiences suggest thus would likely in fact be restarted, simply because that's the nature of PR and it's activities. Simply a note, I find it peculiar you seem so experienced and knowledgeable of Wikipedia and its nature, this suggests peculiarity, especially since there were 2 similar IPs with the same methods and speak within the last 24 hours as it is.... SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To pick the clearest single case, this source (source #3 above) has a headline of "Concerns over dating app’s ‘creepy’ tracker", or (in the HTML title) "Happn dating app: Concerns over app’s ‘stalking issue’ GPS tracking". It then goes on to say:

"CYBER safety experts have warned of the dangers of a dating app which allows its users to track “matches” through the use of GPS. Happn, which is available in the App Store and on Google Play, has been likened to a “more dangerous version of Tinder”. (...) Susan McLean, a police officer for 27 years turned cyber safety expert, told The Sunday Mail that Queenslanders should not be allowing any smartphone app to track locality. “Tinder uses location when it shows you that the person is five or 10km away but that’s not like this where it is tracking movement — this is particularly creepy,” Ms McLean said. "It’s dangerous and absolutely has a huge potential to become an issue.""

The claim that this article is "advertising and PR" for Happn is... implausible in the extreme. There are, therefore, only two possibilities. Either deletionists will not look at articles provided as sources, even to spend two seconds glancing at the headline. Or, deletionists believe that all coverage of a business is "advertising and PR", and therefore invalid, even when that coverage describes a business's product as "creepy", "dangerous", and a "safety risk". In either case, there is not much point in having a deletion discussion at all, since people's minds are obviously made up already.

Indeed, I have edited Wikipedia in the last two days with other IP addresses. The change in IPs is not deliberate, my ISP just assigns addresses dynamically. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:D987:B3C7:631D:3031 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's an example of an actually non-PR source (and a good repudiation of those who think that it's unreasonable to expect sources not to be inspired by company PR outreach) ... do we have any more? (although the Courier-Mail may well count as a tabloid, and that's not a well-written article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input on the latest sources is desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply stating Keep without actually either acknowledging and considering the specific anaylsis above or making one's own anaylsis is not the same thing to simply then actually say "There's sources!". SwisterTwister talk 15:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient examples of significant coverage in reliable sources have already been put forward in this discussion. The analysis above doesn't make a convincing case to ignore these sources. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And sufficient commentd have stated this article is still an advertisement, especially since a user had the sheerness to restart it despite a past deletion. Simply listing "significant sources" means nothing if the contents themselves are simply republished company information and words. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sheerness'. Just because a draft was deleted due to the content and tone, that doesn't make the subject non-notable. It isn't an advertisement now. It's now two sentences stating basic facts about the subject, so concerns of advertising have been addressed by editing and that is therefore not a reason to delete. Clearly the sources available could be used to expand it into a better article. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tone / promotionalism has been addressed, but the article (two sentences) is now a WP:DIRECTORY listing. Available sourced would not allow expansion (in a neutral fashion) and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of minor companies & their apps. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except...the available sources would allow expansion in a neutral fashion, and it is notable as demonstrated by the available sources. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating there exists sources is not taking away or changing the stated facts this is a restarted advertisement, and it was blatantly and boldly restarted despite the advertising Draft also being deleted, therefore it shows the blatant persistence of why the company wants this advertisement, therefore there are no compromises when it comes to advertising. As such, nothing takes away the soundness of WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. The article does not have a promotional tone at this time; it does not extol the benefits of the application, use peacock language, or encourage readers to use the application. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this dating app is popular in france which it deserves a Wikipedia page.if anyone still has issues with this entry.please see the reference .plus,I created this page firstly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you been blocked yet? Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what does that mean?Cabayi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much to say about it now that the promotion was removed. If it lasts more than a couple years, then might be notable some day, but zillions of apps come and go. Too soon for this one. W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's now two sentences stating basic facts about the subject. not ad！我真的不知道这些提出删除建议的人如何判断有广告嫌疑的？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, however, what I showed in my analysis, which showed everything that has been involved this advertising, going as far to state how it was restarted yet again after being deleted before as an advertisement! SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources mentioned by the IP. Several of them (e.g. Economic Times, NYT, Telegraph, The Independent, etc.) are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply stating there exists news sources means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and the analyses above have explicitly shown this, so stating they were otherwise acceptable is not only unapplicable but also unconvincing. As I also stated above, there are persistent attempts at restarting this advertisement which is something that should be taken seriously, not "Well.....Hey, there's sources!!" or else it's literally damning the encyclopedia of the original concept it once had and was, deleting this would surely save us yet another wave of restarting attempts, because it's clear to say, this will be started again if the user cared to actually go around Draftspace and publish it themselves (ignoring AfC reviewing that stated it was unacceptable of course)! SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this version of the Wikipedia page is different from the deleted version .plus the new version of page only contains 2 sentences about sayying this app's function and App market.I don't know how your guys think this is an ad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - The user above has been making numerous attempting at repeatedly restoring their several "Keep" votes in an apparent campaign to "save" this article by simply restating what their own beliefs of the article are, however I have repeatedly now changed them to "Comment" instead. Let me also note that the Keep votes are all still simply, not only ignoring the actual concerns listed here, but then simply still basing their comments from existing sources, instead of actually caring to analyze and exhibit their own concerns of the sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agreed Patar knight voice.because as the reason you mentioned above.Tinder(app) Wikipedia page is also unacceptable ,which The app was publicly reported on NYT with "A Dating App, Happn, to Find a Match Nearby" it only tells us what;s the function of happn.obviously it is acceptable and convincing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanglei123456, have you been paid or otherwise canvassed to edit this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl942 (talk)No I did't get paid for this ,the only reason I create this article is I used this dating app in china ,its a so pop app which it deserve a wikipage with nytimes and other internet news , I just wanna explain why this app is pop in china ,if you cant read Chinese .maybe its time for you to learn chinese, here is the chinese news about the dating app:happn: