Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterproid

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. Rough consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterproid (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)

My searches have found nothing else better than expected links which include PR at News, browsers and Highbeam, and the current sourcing is certainly not convincing either since the only best source is Fortune but it's only brief sentences, certainly not enough. As for the awards, I know that DGG and I both have found "Starting Companies to Watch" often basically simply means there's simply not enough solidity to it and "not yet notable". SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-notable. New internet companies are very easy to form, requiring relatively little capital, and in an environment which excites the interest of investors who can well afford to lose the small amounts of money in the hope of making a great deal upon the rare occasions when they are successful. In this case there might be potential for an article on its product, Divide, now owned by Google. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are bylined news articles written by established writers and published by reliable sources; not public relations material. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent research work by Northamerica. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Cavarrone 11:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000. Good job. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Take another look at NA's sources—they're primarily about the company's "Divide" app. If anything, they support an article about that (with a potential redirect from the company to such a page). But I don't see the argument for significant coverage about the company itself... czar 07:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are sources that provide significant coverage about the company. Note that the company's previous name was "Divide" (see the Financial Times and Bloomberg articles below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there was a majority that did not support the deletion of this article before it was manually relisted here for a 3rd time. No consensus exists for deletion. The discussion should be closed. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 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.