Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenCrowd

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. Consensus is overwhelming. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCrowd (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)

Non-notable company. Џ 18:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks independent, reliable, secondary sources. Citrivescence (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as appears non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Would like to see some unbiased information about the firm not from a news release. --Zaurus (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve unless there's multiple things named OpenCrowd, it looks like there's an impressive number of Google Scholar results and on CSE and on "OpenCrowd"+-wikipedia Google News. There's even a hit on Microsoft Academic. - Scarpy (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - Hit on finanzen.net, markets.businessinsider.com, SFC Today Karl Twist (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: per WP:GNG, press releases do explicitly not count as independent sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, thanks for that info. Karl Twist (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice to closing admin, If the AFD process leans towards delete, can we please possibly re-direct it, thus preserving the history. Perhaps to a Blockchain type of article or something else related to the subject. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References fail to meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. I don't see any reason to redirect it either. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very hard to find any significant independent RS; almost all are linked to the company (or company PRNewsire releases). Britishfinance (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2019 (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.