Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstream Reports

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream Reports

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject fails to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company sourced mainly to typical start-up coverage. The brief mention in the "Green Living" article is not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, nor do I see evidence that the company meets broader WP:GNG at this point. AllyD (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed this and still do not see how this subject passes WP:CORP. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNGDlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 4 June 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.