Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CaptionHub

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaptionHub

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This one doesn't hold up to WP:NCORP. There's no real coverage from secondary, independent, reliable sources. Most of what's cited are press releases, interviews with company reps, blog-style promo writeups, and the usual business updates you'd expect from any startup. Nothing here truly points to the company being notable. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NCORP. Trade journals quoting the CEO don't count. Local Variable (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2025 (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.