Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founder2be

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) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Founder2be

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are mostly WP:SPIP, primary or unreliable. Rentier (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a microbusiness with "1-10" employees, according to Crunchbase. According to a Techcrunch article from 2013, they had been looking at a seed round of $300,000. Niche business of no wider significance, unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Rentier (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of the given sources are primary or blogs, though there is also a TechCrunch item which I have added as a reference. I am not seeing anything which goes beyond start-up coverage and meets WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Founder2be is noteworthy because it was the first to apply online dating principles to finding not romantic, but business partners. Founder2be created this space and led to a host of other companies following in its foot steps and trying to do the same, for example, collabfinder, hatchi, founder dating, cofounderslab, etc. As the pioneer of this approach, it is worth documenting its history and sharing it with others. I propose to improve the article rather than delete it.

A number of reporters at different sources have independently written about Founder2be over the years. These sources include publications such as Forbes or Inc. (in addition to widely read tech publications such as TechCrunch, Mashable, TheNextWeb, etc.) Thus, the notability of Founder2be is further supported by the coverage of these multiple independent and international sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.84.176 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly detailed with the clear intent of serving the company, therefore not an suitable article per our criteria. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created by an WP:SPA [1] who didn't cared about anything other than creating this article. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." WP:CORPDEPTH. And the links that have been provided as sources are dead or promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 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.