Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoverHound

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoverHound[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted but restored upon request of WP:SPA account Anwiley (talk · contribs); (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FCoverHound). Anwiley suggested that the existing coverage is sufficient, pointing to the following four links, which I'll discuss. 1) [1] is a Techcrunch article ""CoverHound Lands $4.5M From RRE, Bullpen & Blumberg To Become The Kayak Of Online Insurance" from 2013. While it is in-depth, TechCrunch covers such events regularly. It is in essence "business as usual"; a start-up getting few millions is nothing that unusual, but it will generate coverage at sites that specialize in chronicling this. Second is a CNET article, [2], "Google may bring auto insurance shopping service to US", which speculates that Google may have some business ties to CoverHound. Nothing worthy of encyclopedic attention here, particularly as it is a speculation. Third, the Boston Globe [3] article just mentions it in passing, this fails the in-depth requirement very clearly.Finally, [4] is an article from PropertyCasualty360 ("A Summit Professional Networks Website") titled "New CoverHound funding allows for expansion in the insurance marketplace"; the site doesn't look reliable or mainstream at all. Overall, I stand by my assessment: despite few articles in minor outlets, some of which are little different from PR / business as usual / we exist pieces, there is nothing to make this pass WP:COMPANY. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, browser and highbeam found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages (WP:NOTYELLOW). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found coverage here, here, here, here and here, but it's probably not enough. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:41, 28 September 2015 (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.