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.
Promotional article with all substantive content by SPAs. No evidence of notability under
WP:NCORP,
WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; closest to an RS is one article on a funding round, which isn't relevant under
WP:CORPDEPTH. A
WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and a bit of churnalism from them. There's no evidence this company was ever notable.
David Gerard (
talk)
08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment the existing article is TNT-quality bad, but
TechCrunch covered them (in the context of fundraising) recently. I do not see enough good sourcing to justify a keep vote, however.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 17:06, 10 August 2021 (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.
Promotional article with all substantive content by SPAs. No evidence of notability under
WP:NCORP,
WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; closest to an RS is one article on a funding round, which isn't relevant under
WP:CORPDEPTH. A
WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and a bit of churnalism from them. There's no evidence this company was ever notable.
David Gerard (
talk)
08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment the existing article is TNT-quality bad, but
TechCrunch covered them (in the context of fundraising) recently. I do not see enough good sourcing to justify a keep vote, however.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 17:06, 10 August 2021 (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.