Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picreel

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. neither of the keeps provide evidence for meeting WP:CORP and this been relisted three times. Secret ^account 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picreel[edit]

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

No real indication why subject is important. Being mentioned as one of the innovative companies by seedcamp doesn't make subject to notable. Not even a single third party source that mentions company and makes it notable. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are 3rd party refs that mention the company, but they are only incidental mentions of 1 sentence or less (entrepreneur.com and conversionxl.com). The other refs do not meet the standard of RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is a result of seedcamp, that selects only 30 companies in a year. Did anyone really attempted hard to find third party references. The Company marginally passes notability with its mentions in reliable sources. Its will really be harsh to mark this page for deletion. My final decision will be keep.Ireneshih (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, digging hard into search engine, the company marginally passes notability. I am changing my vote to weak keep.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources you found would you say demonstrate significant coverage of the software?Dialectric (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2014 (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.