Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UpKeep

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UpKeep

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly too soon. A directory listing on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:CORPDEPTH and TOOSOON. COI and/or paid-editing overtones notwithstanding, there is no apparent indication that this organisation (with perhaps ~20 employees and ~3 years in operation) meets the project's inclusion criteria for commercial entities. The handful of coverage examples in the article (and handful of other examples returned in a simple GOOGLETEST search[1]) would not seem to meet SIGCOV expectations. Guliolopez (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Too Soon. But then you have to look at every other entry in List of Y Combinator startups Rhadow (talk) 12:46, 1 September 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.