Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echopass

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echopass

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

The citations given are PR grade, or they are passing mentions in RS media. They do not do more than confirm a great PR angle. The corporation has not sufficient asserted and verified notability for an article here yet. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find the coverage in cited reliable sources to be significant. ~KvnG 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything wrong here. It does appear to have a few decent sources. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite number of sources, most are passing mentions (or 'trivial and incidental' per WP:ORGDEPTH) and many look to result from press releases. I'm just not seeing the notability here.--Korruski^Talk 12:59, 9 October 2013 (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.