Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stripe (company)


 * 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 Snow Keep. ...more or less.. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Stripe (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small company, apparently one of the minor players in the industry. with references either notices or press releases. They just document investments in it. Not notable.  DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This company is hugely notable in the software space and start-up world, considered a huge success and powering many other businesses. Just for one peek at this, see their page on CrunchBase. They are notable enough that over twelve hundred *users of Crunchbase* have starred or favorited this company, for example. Stripe is also referred to as a success story, making it something that readers will want to look up on Wikipedia for years into the future. Here is an example I just read, by chance, today: (analysis of why Parse is closing down — mentions Stripe as a success story). --X883 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — edited for formatting / explicit vote --X883 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I would've nominated it myself also as the current coverage and overall article seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability in "the software space and start-up world" doesn't equal notability in the greater world. Wikipedia is not a business directory. This company is not remarkable in any way and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. while the current article text isn't particularly compelling, I feel the topic is sufficiently notable Cariaso (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Cariaso that the current article text is questionable, but there exist more than enough reliable, independent sources that the topic meets the Notability criteria. (I once added a reference to an essay by Paul Graham that discusses Stripe and implies that Stripe is remarkable, but later someone deleted that reference.). --DavidCary (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad article but clearly notable. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- One of the bigger Paypal competitor and meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I will suggest rewrite than considering for delete. Forbes, Wall Street Journal and many more. I request to research in detail, before AFD. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I understand DGG's concern on companies with minor media coverage but this particular one appears to be notable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The absence of references in an article does not indicate that a subject is not notable. If significant coverage can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Notability is not temporary, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, in this page we have ongoing coverage. It has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Ireneshih (talk) 06:00, 9 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.