Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introhive


 * 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. ✗ plicit  01:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Introhive

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article with all substantive content by SPAs. No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; closest to an RS is one article on a funding round, which isn't relevant under WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and a bit of churnalism from them. There's no evidence this company was ever notable. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  09:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination, and the fact that the article text is marketroid babble. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the existing article is TNT-quality bad, but TechCrunch covered them (in the context of fundraising) recently. I do not see enough good sourcing to justify a keep vote, however. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:06, 10 August 2021 (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.