Deletion of Quiqup

Comment: Not every source that includes quotes from the subject's people is "churnalism". Independence is only missing when the whole article is based on words by the subject. Neither the Telegraph article nor the source added by timtempleton are such sources. More sources: http://www.cityam.com/268339/city-moves-13-july-2017-whos-switching-jobs-quiqup https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/best-of-london/3-companies-disrupting-london-food-industry/11/07/ https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:rL2o6HB4dJoJ:scholar.google.com/+%22Quiqup%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5. Sufficient coverage per . Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Fails  and GNG. I've also deleted most of the article as Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing or advocacy and most of the article regurgitated routine partnership and funding announcements. Also, while {{u|TTTZZZCCC}} says above that the sources satisfies the criteria for notability, I do not know what this means. If he means that the sources themselves meet the criteria for "reliable" and "independent" sources, that may be true. But examining the sources provided in the article with the specific guidelines for sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability and especially  and  results in the straightforward conclusion that *all* of the sources provided in the article fail either one or the other and often both. This article is corporate spam and the topic fails notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)