Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bizible


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 07:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bizible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. I don't see significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources here but I'm not American so may be undervaluing some of them. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 13.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. To me, the sources linked in the article seem like significant coverage. Two full articles in Geekwire, one full article in Small Business Trends, and a couple of paragraphs in Xconomy - do you have concerns about any of those sources? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The two GeekWire sources count as a single source per GNG, and not a great source. A few of the other sources don't mention Bibible at all. The remaining concern standard funding announcements which mean very little for company notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is part of the Long-term abuse/Morning277, it was initially a paid promotion piece, recreated in new form here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep young company that has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7 the actual article makes no claim to significance other than by inheritance.  LGA talk  edits   06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article in Small Business Trends represents somewhat in-depth coverage by an independent source.  The articles in Search Engine Land don't go into as much depth, but cover other aspects of the company.  At present, the article is fairly lacking, but there seems to be enough coveage out there to put together a decent stub; and the coverage is wide enough to suggest some degree of notability.  I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt.  Ammodramus (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.