Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoCubes

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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoCubes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

despite some removal of promotional material, remains not notable. Most of the refs are trivial or not really aboutthe company., TheNew Indian Express article is reprinted PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's a start-up but it has sufficient coverage IMO. In addition to all the usual VC headlines, more mentions: [1], [2], among winners for start-up award competition [3], ranked fifth on Deloitte Technology Fast50 India list —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if after this much effort by the page creator, and not a single reliable article can be provided, unlikely this page could ever meet GNG and CORP notability rules. Did not find anything myself either. mikeman67 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree with —Мандичка^YO arguments, but it seems to me not very correct to include sites in the Wikipedia. May be the alter article on "Job Search in India" would be better and this one will put into subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reads like an ad for a company Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG and Fails WP:ORG and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability; the sources provided aren't really about the company. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the sources provided do not provide significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG; some of the sources are promotional and others aren't about the subject, but just contain minor mentions. Ghostwheel ʘ 21:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as SNOW. Quis separabit? 22:52, 13 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.