- 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Advanon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials.
"Advanon targets the market of 378,000 high growth SMEs in the Germany-Austria-Switzerland region" and other coverage on same themes. Light2021 ( talk) 09:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fintech blogs are pretty minimal coverage. The RS mentions aren't enough to convince me of notability here - David Gerard ( talk) 11:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by all means as my watching this since March shows the blatancy of not only company advertising but for a company whose existence has only been for something of a year, with the sources being themselves PR and republished PR, none of it comes close to actual independence (nothing here is guaranteed as non-company materials) or substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Advanon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials.
"Advanon targets the market of 378,000 high growth SMEs in the Germany-Austria-Switzerland region" and other coverage on same themes. Light2021 ( talk) 09:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fintech blogs are pretty minimal coverage. The RS mentions aren't enough to convince me of notability here - David Gerard ( talk) 11:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by all means as my watching this since March shows the blatancy of not only company advertising but for a company whose existence has only been for something of a year, with the sources being themselves PR and republished PR, none of it comes close to actual independence (nothing here is guaranteed as non-company materials) or substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.