Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crashlytics (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crashlytics

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

PROD removed and, unfortunately not G4 material so here we are again; there's nothing at all substantial as the sources are simply PR, trivial, interviews and other unconvincing sources; searches are not finding better apart from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below, which consist of bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - clearly notable as being Twitter's largest acquisition, although it is troubling that the most cited usage statistic can't be corroborated without the company's blog post. How is this tool on two billion phones? I'm thinking the article is saying that apps using this tool are on two billion phones. One would assume Twitter is one app but it would be nice to see some hard validation of this and other apps that use the tool.Timtempleton (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few edits have been made but the article's stunning usage claims still need to be independently sourced. Even without them I'm reiterating my keep vote.Timtempleton (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2016 (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.