The result was delete. Consensus formed around the nominator's assertion the that sourcing failed to demonstrate notability Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Despite the large number of references, as far as I can tell none of them meet the WP:NCORP criteria for counting toward notability. Most of them are primary. Most of the ones that aren't aren't in-depth or independent. For example, Ref 4 is not independent because it's based almost entirely with an interview from one of the company's investors. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus formed around the nominator's assertion the that sourcing failed to demonstrate notability Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Despite the large number of references, as far as I can tell none of them meet the WP:NCORP criteria for counting toward notability. Most of them are primary. Most of the ones that aren't aren't in-depth or independent. For example, Ref 4 is not independent because it's based almost entirely with an interview from one of the company's investors. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)