Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bringrr

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 keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringrr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to be notable. The company's only claim to fame was a Kickstarter project, and a small group of tech articles over a year ago. However, since then, there has been no further mention of this company. In addition, the company appears to be defunct, as shown by its website: https://bringr.com/ Kage Acheron (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The definition of "notable" isn't "I don't think it's important." The definition is right here. Boston Business Journal, the Lowell Sun, CNN, TechCrunch, these are all reliable sources, and the articles cited are substantive. Whether the company is defunct or not or whether coverage is ongoing doesn't matter, notability not being temporary. Nor was coverage fleeting, as the nom suggests; the news hits I'm looking at run over a spread of five years. I recommend the nom become better acquainted with WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 04:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to keep since the article is neat and sourced by notable websites and News found results from the past years although none recent. Browser found nothing good but Highbeam found results along with mostly press releases at thefreelibrary; all in all, the article is still acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Ravenswing CorporateM (Talk) 07:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.