Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geekli.st

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geekli.st

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

Notability and advertisement. Majority of references focus on the act of raising venture capital, not the company's accomplishments. Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of trouble finding sources that don't talk about either the site just starting up or about them being sort of idiotic about how to respond to criticism. There's not a lot out there, to be honest. Much of what I'm finding falls under the "probably not useful" banner, such as this source that talks about the video kerfuffle by someone who could probably be seen as an expert but is still somewhat unverifiable in some other ways to where it's a dubious source. There are plenty of links by TNW, but then at one point they hosted a contest for people to win accounts when it was still in beta, so that sort of makes them somewhat unusable as a source since that makes them tenuously linked to the site. I've cleaned up the worst of the promotional speak, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you'll notice I just submitted a large number of pages that roughly fit that description - the articles are about how much money they've raised or who their investors are, secondary to that is what they do and that's very self-promotional in most cases. There is a small network of blogs (see my user page) that are focused on writing about venture capital fundraising and then follow-up articles as those companies progress which is notable to the world of startups and venture capitalists but usually less so outside those circles unless the companies break through to a much wider audience (like Dropbox, YouTube, Facebook etc). These blogs usually comprise the majority of references for this and similar company pages. Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way WP:TOOSOON for notability for this less-than-a-year-old website. I could find no coverage from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't established through fundraising. Arrangington (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2013 (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.