Draft talk:OpenUp (company)

Conflict of Interest disclosure / Rewrite of previously deleted topic

Hello editors,

I have created this article on behalf of OpenUp as a paid consultant. I strictly adhere to Wikipedia's policies regarding Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View.

Regarding previous deletion (G11/G4): I am aware that a previous article under this title was deleted for being promotional (G11). I want to clarify that the current article is a complete rewrite from scratch aimed at resolving those specific issues.

Specific improvements in this version:

• Tone: All marketing language, "mission statements," and product catalogs have been removed. The text is strictly factual and historical.
• Notability: This draft relies on deep coverage from high-reliability independent sources, specifically Sifted, MT/Sprout, and Het Parool, establishing the company's significance in the European healthtech sector (500%+ growth metrics).
• Structure: The content focuses on the company's business model pivot and funding history rather than its service features.

I believe this version satisfies the General Notability Guideline and does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion under G4, as the content is substantially different from the deleted version.

I welcome any feedback or corrections from the community.

JakeNW222 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just my opinion on your WP:THREE best sources:

• Sifted - one paragraph in a list. WP:CORPTRIV: inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
• MT/Sprout - two paragraphs, that look like a synopsis of a press release about the funding round, are not WP:SIGCOV. Again, WP:CORPTRIV: routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.
• Het Parool - The article looks to be more about mental health in sports rather than coverage of OpenUp itelf. The parts that are about OpenUp are mostly quotes from the company's owner, so don't help with notability.

I think it's unlikely that this will make it through AfC in its current state. I'd recommend reading WP:NCORP in some detail so you can see the kinds of sources you need. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed breakdown regarding WP:NCORP. I appreciate you taking the time to differentiate between the funding coverage vs. significant independent coverage.

I understand your point regarding the "routine" nature of the MT/Sprout and Sifted links. I am going to pause on requesting a re-review immediately and instead conduct a deeper search for Dutch financial press (FD/NRC) or international tech analysis that focuses on the business model/impact rather than just the transaction milestones.

I will update the draft's referencing to reflect WP:SIGCOV standards before nudging for a review. Thanks again. JakeNW222 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Update: Hi SunloungerFrog, I have completed the deeper search for independent coverage to address your concerns regarding WP:SIGCOV.

I have updated the draft's History section with two new high-quality sources that move beyond routine funding news:

1. A narrative profile in Het Financieele Dagblad (FD), the primary Dutch financial newspaper. This article is written in the third person and analyzes the founder's background and the specific business model innovation of the company (comparing the efficiency of the digital intake model vs traditional practice).
2. A feature story in Het Parool regarding the company's diversification into the personal care sector (training hairdressers). This covers a specific operational rollout and societal impact, distinct from the earlier sports-related coverage.

I believe these sources, combined with the verified facts from the earlier citations, now satisfy the requirement for deep, third-party analysis. I would appreciate it if you could take another look when you have a moment. Thanks! JakeNW222 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@SunloungerFrog: Hi, just a gentle bump on this in case the previous notification got buried. I would love it if you could take another look when you have a moment. Thanks! JakeNW222 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It's in the queue for AfC review. I don't do AfC. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as unreviewed LLM content, because... Contest G15: This article is NOT AI-generated. It is a researched draft by a disclosed paid editor (see Talk history). The reviewer noted broken/irrelevant links and I apologize for this; some URLs may have rotted or been pasted incorrectly during drafting. The core sources (Sifted, MT/Sprout, Het Parool) are highly reliable independent sources that verify the subject's notability. I am removing the disputed citations (Rubio, ChangeInc, SocialHub) immediately and replacing them with working references. Please allow me some time to fix the citations. --JakeNW222 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI in any way to help you with the article? E.g. a grammar or spell checker or some such? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi SunloungerFrog, thanks for the check. To answer your question: Yes, I use drafting tools (Grammarly primarily) to help ensure the text structure is grammatically correct and neutral. However, the research and citation selection are manual. The issues that were flagged with the references were human errors on my part, not AI hallucinations:

• Ref 2 (Rubio): This was link rot (the URL changed structures). I have removed it.
• Ref 9 (ChangeInc): This was an error in my citation list. I have removed it.
• Ref 10 (Social Hub): The URL had moved. I have updated it to the working archive.

I have just saved a new revision that cleans up these specific issues. Thanks for catching them. JakeNW222 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Save it gng