Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel (company)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel (company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All WP:MILL coverage, nothing in depth and the rest are listings. Fails GNG/NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some of their claims on this page and here[1] are notable, but I can find no good secondary coverage. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Ping the reviewer also ~~Keep~~Delete After reading and rereading the article I have decided that this may not have been my best decision but I do go by what I said when I reviewed it that news articles would be sufficient coverage. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you said to ping the reviewer, as the reviewer yourself? Can you provide that significant coverage, Username Needed? Because the sources in the article don't establish that:

I thought I saw two news sources in there, but I may have been mistaken. ^{[Username Needed]} 10:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the sources in question more thoroughly (something I should have done already) I have re-decided that there is only one shaky at best suitable source, and have changed my vote accordingly. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is their own website
is basically a blog
business announcement so WP:MILL
fluffed up PR piece combined with some sound bytes
non notable award
not sure what this is supposed to support but it's not WP:IRS
their own website
their own website

So aside from the lack of coverage I can find, it's also pretty spammy. Praxidicae (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, falling quite short of WP:NCORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edited page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottebolton (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is no more noteworthy than any other business on the highstreet. Its sources are either cursory mentions or self-referential with several from its own website.Pupsbunch (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly PR pieces nothing substantial and reliable enough to have a page. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2019 (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.