Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inxeption

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inxeption

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Lots of PR, no signifiant coverage in independent sources. Note the "20 Most Promising.." ranking in CIO is worthless as that publication takes payment for including organizations in such rankings and is not independent. Pontificalibus 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 14:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources from mainstream business press. I’ve no idea whether the sources provided are reliable and independent as I’m not familiar with the tech startup sector, but it looks to me like the UPS PR dept did a great job of flooding the sector press with launch publicity, and that’s about it. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (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.