Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphic.ly

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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic.ly[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or routine corporate notices. The company is defunct, so no future opportunity for increased notability. It was not notable while in business, and is still non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing meaningful to add since sufficent reason given by nom. Xaxing (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: K.e.coffman, bit confused about your remark that "what comes up is passing mentions". It seems like it is the actual subject of a number of reliable sources. E.g., Financial Times (Comic fans flock to Graphicly"), Publishers Weekly (Graphicly Acquires Digital Comics Reader, Double Feature"), Forbes (Graphicly's Micah Baldwin: Why Storytelling Matters") and TechCrunch (Digital Comic Startup Graphic.ly Draws Up $3 Million To Take 2011 "Beyond The Page"). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: note blocked sock gets no weight so more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 March 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.