Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beepi

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beepi[edit]

[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)

Never was notable, ; originally presumably intended as promotional before the company failed. Started by a single purpose account, continued by a paid editor. See the adjacent afd for the article on the company's founder. Even had the firm been moderately suscessful, it would still not have justified 2 articles. Trying to write to write an article on both a founder who is at best very borderline notable and the company which is at best very borderline notable is almost always an attempt to use WP for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company based on the press coverage already cited in the article. Whether or not written by paid editors or with promotional intent, this article is quite informative and hardly has any hint of promotion. "Even had the firm been moderately suscessful ..." we decide to keep company articles on basis of notability rather than being successful. 106.208.71.185 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 106.208.71.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: So according to you, things like [1], [2], [3] and [4] don't count as "significant RS coverage", and instead are "passing mentions" or "routine notices"? Btw i have no COI here. 106.208.95.156 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No indications of notability, references are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 13 July 2018 (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.