Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideas42


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideas42

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, clearly fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree and believe the page passes GNG. Will search for more articles though to see if the case can be strengthened. Jeremy112233 ( Lettuce-jibber-jabber? ) 15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. almost all the references are either mentions, peripheral, or written by people connected with the organization. For example, what might appear the best of them: The first NYTimes articles is written by someone who helped start the company, and discloses that in the article; the second NYT article just mentions the company.  DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as the article is still questionable overall including notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2016 (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.