Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShipHawk


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

ShipHawk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

ShipHawk does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They are a small start up company with 65 employees on Linkedin. They have very minimal press coverage. They have a few articles, a lot of press releases, and lots of directory listings / profiles. Other than that, they don't have much. Half of their references barely mention the company. In addition, the page creator is a SPA, who is most likely an employee of the company. This article's sole purpose is to serve as an advertisement for the company. I don't see how this obscure company meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Sonstephen0 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources are simply not there: The usual self-references, e.g. here; an article on Ad Age about Walmart going against Amazon with a single mention of our subject; a 2014 piece on a website about eight of the "new breed of entrepreneurs who are transforming traditional industries" which includes our subject; an Inc. report on "outside logistics" that name drops ShipHawk once; plus two routine articles on Tech Crunch, one about the firm raising capital and the other an advertorial. A case of WP:TOOSOON, we may wish on them. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2019 (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.