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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usersnap[edit]

Usersnap (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)

Article about a non-notable startup, created by an undisclosed paid editor. Of the cited sources:

• SpeedInvest is an investor in Usersnap.
• Trending Topics is another startup in which SpeedInvest invests, so not as arms length as it might appear.
• Inventures's cofounder says: "There is already a high demand for content marketing in the international startup scene and the trend is upwards. Startups as well as their supporters often don't have the time to look into proper PR and media coverage - that's where we come in".[1]
• The review via Business 2 Community says it's a republished GetApp review from October 25, 2013. The only review on the GetApp website on that date was posted by Thomas Peham. Finding their connection to Usersnap is left as an exercise for the reader. (The next review on the site, also 5 stars, is by Josef Trauner, one of the founders of Usersnap). Based on an archived snapshot, the text of the review was actually posted on GetApp on October 17, 2013 by Stephanie Miles.[2] Her LinkedIn profile describes her as a freelancer and content creator/consultant, "Consulting on content marketing, content strategies, and brand development; interviewing, reporting, writing, and editing cross-category digital content". Nothing in her background suggests she would know a bug tracking system from a hole in the ground, let alone be qualified to review one.[3] Presumably Usersnap fed her what they wanted the public to read.

The only legitimately independent source is the piece in Wirtschaftswoche. Searches of the usual Google types found no other significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:NCORP. -- Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to it failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Since all the sources seem to involve people connected to the company and therefore lack neutrality. I'm willing to change my vote if something neutral and that's not written by someone connected to the company comes along. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regular variety WP:CORPSPAM that fails NORG/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 28 July 2020 (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.