Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubscriptionBridge

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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:CORP j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubscriptionBridge

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

There are notable sources, such as Chrunchbase SubscriptionBridge[1] and Chrunchbase Early Impact[2]. A press release from Comodo [3]. SubscriptionBridge is also listed in the following matrix of recurring billing applications{http://saasy.com/matrix.php}. Early Impact is also listed directly on PayPal's partner page{https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/bizui/IntegrationThirdParty-outside}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, no reliable or verifiable sources. Of listed refs, Bloomberg comes up blank (search page), the other two are press release/self-published. No GNews/archives hits that I could find (although they might be buried in the card game hits). CSD declined by IP with reason of other stuff. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review Again - Article Bloomberg link was fixed. Techcrunch base is a valid reference for Early Impact. Early Impact is listed as a PCI compliant product [4], which is only granted to valid companies. Early Impact has dozens of excellent reviews on Hotscripts [5]. The co-founder did not "spam" an article with comments. In the comments he actually listed several other competitors. He is a member on Quora and frequently answers questions with over 50 followers. Early Impact is also listed on PayPal's Partner page. There is also a separate Crunchbase listing for SubscriptionBridge here [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not about the company, but about a service it provides. No one is saying that either it or the company does not exist - we're questioning its notability, which has still not been shown PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for clarifying Steve. I was puzzled as to why so many were trying to delete a valid company that services thousands of merchants. You see I was just trying to add this company to the wiki as a payment provider... because people looking at the list of payment providers expect to see a full list. This company is a legitimate payment provider. It seems you are looking for companies that have made a ton of news. That's the part that still confuses me though. There really is not much difference between this listing and the other payment providers listed. Some of the other payment providers did private funding or offered a beta and that generated news, but that did not make them more important in my view. So am I correct that this article would become notable is there was more news? Is that basically what I should focus on when contributing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article should have been speedily deleted per WP:A7. SD tag could have been reapplied since it was removed by WP:SPA IP with two edits. Since we're here, company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. A Google News search produces one article with a large list of companies (no significant coverage) that includes this company. The other article makes no mention of this company but a co-founder spammed the comment section with SubscriptionBridge info. A Google News Archive search produces no independent and significant coverage from a reliable source. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this company meets the general notability criteria or the company criteria. None of the provided references are adequate (the Bloomsberg one doesn't appear to show them on the list of companies; the PRWeb one is a press release from the company - so not independent - and the Practical Ecommerce one is not significant coverage, and appears to be wholly based on information provided by the company). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks anything to substantiate notability. Eeekster (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 27 June 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.