Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargebee

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chargebee

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

Previously a Prod with rationale "Insufficient evidence of attained notability. Sole reference is an article from July 2012 about the company as a pre-release start-up." The Prod was removed by the article creator (a WP:SPA whose editing contributions relate only to this firm) after adding an online reviews of the software. My view is this is at best WP:TOOSOON and there is no evidence of this new product meeting the WP:NSOFT criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and PROD endorser; company fails WP:CORP in every way possible. §FreeRangeFrog 22:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was just created, so a lot of scope for further improvement. Also the company seems new with little or not much in news, this i think has lead to an WP:AfD under WP:NSOFT, but a search does show some notability BBB ACCREDITED BUSINESS, [1] and a search does produce result Yahoo Search. So i believe that the article may grow in future and hence be given some time to add more source when they emerge.Pearll's Sun^TALK 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is disputing the company exists, nor that they have placed themselves on social media and Wikipedia (which are the main returns from the Yahoo search), but Wikipedia depends on achieved notability rather than an expectation that they may one day achieve it. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yes, i understand and also agreed that "Wikipedia depends on achieved notability". But i feel its too early for a deletion as the company has just begun and we may give the new user some time to save the article with more reliable references and if still no improvement with null notability then we can always bring it to Afd. Pearll's Sun^TALK 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could always userfy the article to the author's talk page if he or she requests it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, this article is WP:TOOSOON and SPA created so possibly promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:45, 21 November 2012 (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.