Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zippy Shell


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Zippy Shell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor company, sourced by press release & minor noticess. Promotional article, with excessive details of no interest except to prospective customers.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I mentioned with my PROD, searches found only expected coverage and none of it better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It took a while to go through all that link spam and I am here to report that that part of my life was wasted.  There was nothing there except a lot of routine coverage of minor events, personnel changes, financing activities, new location openings, etc.  Nowhere in that list did I find anything resembling a reliable independent secondary source discussing the subject in detail as required to establish notability under WP:GNG nor was I was able to find one by Googling.  Msnicki (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears to have enough available sources to be WP:GNG. --Crwarren06 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article appears to satisfy the criteria of WP:ORG. A company which secured an investment of $25 million in 2015 is surely notable. Silverado60 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. There is absolutely nothing in WP:ORG to indicate that just because someone invested a lot of money in this company, that makes them notable.  Nothing whatsoever.  Period.  You need more than a WP:BIGNUMBER to establish notability, you need actual reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail.  All it takes is two to be multiple.  I challenge you to find even one.  Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if we did have a quantitative notability standard, which is something I would support, $25 million would surely come on the non-notable side of it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that despite a list of links that suggest a degree of coverage in the business sector, if you look at them closely you'll see they are for the most part perfunctory regurgitations of the companies own press releases. The single reference that might suggest some sort of independent coverage (DC Inno. 30 Dec. 2015) merely list the company among 9 other successful 2015 startups. Simply existing as a successful start up doesn't automatically translate into being notable. And I also agree that a $25 million investment is not out of the ordinary. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:05, 18 March 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.