Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AkitaBox
- 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. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- AkitaBox (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)
no reliable sources for notability: just press releases and articles dependent on them .Local bizjournals are a notoriously unreliable source for notability, because they'll cover anything sent to them. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like artspam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - notable per story from a reliable newspaper.
- Delete. The article gives almost no information about the company; all of the sources are about the fact that they got funding from a local startup capital funder. I had to go to Google to confirm that the company is even open for business (it is, or at least it has a website). Way, way too soon to have an article about this brand new startup. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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.