Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seedups

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. Notable per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:HASREFS, as the participants have mentioned. Borderline notable. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seedups

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

Not notable--sourcing is essentially press rleeases DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional references available for notability. See [1]--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HASREFS. I have just added two references. --Edcolins (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have you actually cared to examine the sources? Most of them merely discuss it in passing along with other startups. No major source has covered it exclusively. All coverage is less than a year old. No indication it is notable per GNG or WP:CORP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, but I still think that the two sentences in Bessant (2015), the whole paragraph in Sixt (2014), half a page in a 2011 EENC Report (which I have just added), and the four other references in various newspapers (one of them -just added as well- indicating that Seedups had been "featured in the Forbes top 10 crowdfunding platform list") together establish notability. Borderline perhaps, but sufficient to keep IMHO. Although the depth of coverage might not be substantial, multiple independent sources exist (WP:CORPDEPTH). --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 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.