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 no consensus.
Mark Arsten (
talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. As this article is an
abomination of company and service, there are two subjects to discuss:
Service: all the references I could find are clearly connected with the launch event of the service, which is what "multiple sources" was not supposed to mean. Given the content of these news items, I doubt if anyone could tell a difference between this particular service and, say,
Flickr or
Google Picasa, so the references are clearly lacking depth. I would add that I have no doubts that this coverage is paid promotion, which would invalidate it for the purposes of establishing notability.
Company: absolutely nothing to suggest
notability, just the startup announcement, which itself is covered not as such, but as an event during
TechCrunch50.
I would specifically note, that if this article survives AfD, it should be cleaned of the company-related information. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete: The sources that are readily available all seem to cover just the launch announcement or basic existence, so that doesn't help with
WP:ORG. The product/service offered may be significant enough to meet
WP:NSOFT, but it is not evident at this time (right now it seems to be more in the order of
WP:MILL). If someone can improve the article with more in-depth knowledge I am open to revise, but right now I don't see it. --
BenTels (
talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep – The topic of this stub article This company meets
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:GNG:
As that isn't strict policy though (I wish!), then it would appear to scrape basic notability on its 2009 award. That's a lifetime ago in dotcom years though, and if they haven't seen meteoric success since then, then are they at all relevant today?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually
WP:NTEMP suggests that coverage in relation to single event does not contribute to notability, which is Andy's point. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.