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. J04n(talk page) 14:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain401 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An directory-like page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Created by Special:Contributions/Spbm with few other contributions outside this topic. The company has raised $3.5M in funding, which strongly suggests its WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered in both the Wall Street journal and TechCrunch. Fulfills requirements of GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pretty much all the sources in the article, and a lot of the sources available, are about seed funding, which is pretty routine coverage, and is remarkable precisely because they're a startup with no corporate history, market share, etc. But Wikipedia is not the place to cover exciting new possibilities in venture capitalism. Most of the rest of the hits I'm seeing are absolutely the worst kind of inane name dropping, passing mention, link farming, promotionalism... using junk like Think long and hard about exactly what you need to stay motivated to stuff in an image, name and a link to your website in a completely inane filler article ([1], [2], [3], [4]). It might be notable in the future, but I'm not seeing very much to suggest there's enough depth of coverage to think it's notable now. GMG^talk 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it has received little coverage for the funding only, otherwise non-notable and suspicious article creation. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A young company that hasn't yet achieved anything of note. Raising a seed round is insufficient for notability, and it's the only thing that has received some (limited) coverage. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2017 (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.