Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idea Rebel (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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Rebel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. List of awards are all local (and generally not wins); only two of the significant third-party sources listed focus on the company, and only this one focuses on the work they do; the Globe&Mail piece is just using them as an example of a paperless office. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned and this is how it should've happened at the 1st AfD had I noticed it at the time. None of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, a company is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists — but nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability under WP:CORP, and the sourcing isn't solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changes were made to meet guidelines --GastownBlogger11 24:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those are still likely not enough for a solid notable article. This can be drafted and userfied if you wish, SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neutral on this, but the linked article on its CEO also looks non-notable. It mostly cites articles on this company and not-really-that-great sources e.g. finalist in an entrepreneurship competition and being on a '40 under 40 in Vancouver' list. Blythwood (talk) 07:41, 13 January 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.