Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RapidAPI (company)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RapidAPI (company) (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)

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Prodded by User:SwisterTwister, removed by the creator, who is a stale now. Don't delete it burn it. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- It seems to me that the company is not notable, but is a story of the investor/promoters, which factor into the article more than the company or product. Rhadow (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close  The proposal to burn is uncivil and incendiary.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- $3.5M in funding is way too low for this startup to be presumed notable; sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes wP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 10 September 2017 (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.