Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zimmber

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. J04n(talk page) 16:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmber (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)

Questionable notability. Might fail WP:SUSTAINED. Ringbang (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of sources available about the company, such as those using the Google News link atop and additional custom source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Northamerica1000: That's as may be, but the coverage seems to be all about fundraising. If the newsworthiness of this young company is about fundraising, how can it pass WP:SUSTAINED? —Ringbang (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still simply a somewhat newly founded company with only expected news coverage being found, therefore nothing actually outstandingly convincing at News and WP:INDAFD so far, overall it's simply not enough and that's not surprising to see. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - As mentioned, the Keep vote only gives expected amounts of coverage we would see from this type of subject, an Indian company with not even 2 years of history, and from a country who is known for massive amounts of expected coverage for attention or including sometimes fundraising, other finance-boosting schemes. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. articles on new companies that have references only covering fundraising should be deleted as a general rule, because such coverage is totally indiscriminate, and not only in India.. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey DGG: check out WP:NEWCOMPANY. Nevertheless, I have changed my !vote above to "weak keep". Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there can be exceptions, and I have consistently opposed making a total ban on companies with less than a certain length of existence. If the company has accomplished something sufficiently important to get RS coverage, then it can be notable. If it has only raised money , its otherwise. I do not consider any of the sources in this article RS for anything. And the entire contents of the article except for the funding is an advertisement for their services. And I think our views on articles such as these have stiffened considerably since that essay was written in 2008. I know my own view has certainly changed, in response to the deluge of attempts to use WP for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 June 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.