Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring

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. If its notable then we need sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdspring

Notability isn't asserted in the article and I don't believe the website is at all notable (Google shows up little beyond its own website and accounts on social networking/photo sites). —Sean Whitton / 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because it is at the center of a 'spec' vs. 'no spec' debate. Needs to be better sourced and the controversy needs to be contextualized, however. Billbowery (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this Yellow Pages type stub fails WP:SPAM. This article fails to establish notability for the company, as there is not any substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:08, 15 August 2009 (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.