Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapier

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. Consensus that NCORP and CORPDEPTH are satisfied via various sources (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zapier (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)

A advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of reliable tech sources, plenty of reliable business sources, and a couple of mentions in the news like [1]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my ineptitude - I'm just learning how to do this. But I would keep this article simply because it provides an unbiased overview of Zapier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DwayneReid (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Reviewed in detail by PC Magazine and received significant coverage from TechCrunch, Network World, and PC World. One of the company's business practices has also received significant coverage from Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, and Inc.. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 11 August 2018 (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.