- 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. North America 1000 04:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- GenieBelt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Goroand ( WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like product/company spam. The most it has going for it are few mentions in passing, with the best being a paragraph and a half in Forbes. I don't think that's enough to be in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as "startup spam" -- even with a section dedicated to "Fundraising History". No indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. No indications of notability. -- HighKing ++ 12:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No real evidence of actual impact, and the sources listed are mighty thin, to put it mildly. -- Calton | Talk 03:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I concur with the nomination, as it's exact with stating the concerns, everything here exists only for advertising and nothing else, regardless of any likely notability in which this is not. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 20 November 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. North America 1000 04:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- GenieBelt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Goroand ( WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like product/company spam. The most it has going for it are few mentions in passing, with the best being a paragraph and a half in Forbes. I don't think that's enough to be in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as "startup spam" -- even with a section dedicated to "Fundraising History". No indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. No indications of notability. -- HighKing ++ 12:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No real evidence of actual impact, and the sources listed are mighty thin, to put it mildly. -- Calton | Talk 03:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I concur with the nomination, as it's exact with stating the concerns, everything here exists only for advertising and nothing else, regardless of any likely notability in which this is not. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 20 November 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.