Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crittercism


 * 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   keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. The many good sources at Wall Street Journal, Time, Forbes, TechCrunch, etc., prove it passes GNG. Up at AfD for over 18 days, time to move on. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Crittercism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. No redeeming encyclopaedic value. Essentially spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH:
 * "With $5.5M From Google Ventures, Opus, Crittercism Launches An App Performance Management Solution." TechCrunch.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 11:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:52, 28 September 2012 (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) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Alan, you see those little numbered things at the bottom of the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The presence of references does not equate to notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is typical company spam. No redeeming encyclopedic value. Many other startup pages created and have been deleted. This page is no different. Stealth spam. ItalianRed (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Oakenfeld23 (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the references provided are press releases (republished) or trivial mentions. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Does that include the Wall Street Journal article?    D r e a m Focus  09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This looks like genuine independent coverage. The article needs to be expanded with what they do, not just how much money they've raised. The source I linked can help with that. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal article, has been found. It easily passes WP:GNG.   D r e a m Focus  09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Meets the GNG with articles in Time and Forbes  Th e S te ve
 * 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.