Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennybox

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pennybox[edit]

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

Non notable They have so far not yet accomplished anything. The references are a mixture of PR and mere notices, as usual for this sort of article. I think it was absurd to have accepted this from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are some sources: [1], [2], [3]. Technically meets WP:GNG, although on a weak level. Not particularly absurd to AfC-accept. Don't care if it's deleted, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent start-up, describing its proposition, funding and beta progress, which is the typical coverage needed by any start-up. The best of the sources place its proposition in relation to competitors in its field, indicating some independent perspective, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, whether WP:CORPDEPTH for the company or WP:PRODUCT for their app. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per AllyD. There is no evidence that this start up which operates in a very crowded space is of lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and lacks the coverage needed by WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if something passes WP:GNG it doesn't means automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. Also considering many valid concerns raised ealier, WP:SPA, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and article written more or less like WP:PROMO Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2017 (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.