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 Forbes interview is on a sites subdomain, which means it is user generated and Non RS. Its Forbes own web hosting platform. Here is what Entrepreneur says on its articles: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. It is also Non RS.
scope_creep (
talk) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep: Didn't intend to sound like I was borderline "keep" - I am neutral at this time - I was just stating that they did exist & giving "preliminary findings" as it were. Will !vote shortly. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 03:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I was making more of statement of the state the references, more than anything else.
scope_creep (
talk) 09:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete you'd have thought for a company in existence since 2005 that it may have gained some notability in that time. I can't see much beyond the article that appears largely promotional and devoid of any actual tangible encyclopedic content. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
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 Forbes interview is on a sites subdomain, which means it is user generated and Non RS. Its Forbes own web hosting platform. Here is what Entrepreneur says on its articles: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. It is also Non RS.
scope_creep (
talk) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep: Didn't intend to sound like I was borderline "keep" - I am neutral at this time - I was just stating that they did exist & giving "preliminary findings" as it were. Will !vote shortly. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 03:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I was making more of statement of the state the references, more than anything else.
scope_creep (
talk) 09:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete you'd have thought for a company in existence since 2005 that it may have gained some notability in that time. I can't see much beyond the article that appears largely promotional and devoid of any actual tangible encyclopedic content. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
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.