Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formstack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James Allison (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 20 April 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Formstack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently started web company without any independent references, no obvious claims of notability Dmol (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like marketing to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.46.151 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Actually I now change my vote from Keep to Merge with formspring.me. Most of the third party media coverage I added was related to the formspring.me web product rather than the parent company Formstack. I didn't realize formspring.me had its own wiki article, which renders this one redundant. There is hardly any third party coverage of Formstack as a company in its own right. Little Professor (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through these two articles and wondered the same thing myself. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a Web startup company is not a mark against notability, especially when it has had so much press coverage for it and its products (formspring.me and related sites, in this case) in the few years of operation. More than enough reliable news sources to meet corporate or Web notability requirements. Steven Walling 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]