Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peer39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Fram (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer39

Peer39 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Regarding notability, this company has had articles about it in Dow Jones Marketwatch, Crain Communications Inc. (Crain's New York), Globes and Jerusalem Post in print. These articles reference the notability of the company in the industry. In addition to these major news outlets, the company has been covered online extensively in industry media. To reflect this, I have edited the entry to include other verifiable external sources.Emilgray (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the Crains story is sufficient sourcing for notability.DGG (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - what notability it has seems to be that it raised some money from notable companies. That is about all that is verifiable from the references. Is that sufficient to call it notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Raising money from notable companies doesn't make it notable, but independent reliable sources reporting that it did so does make it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Raising money from major venture capitalists does make a company notable, if we want an encyclopedic coverage of venture finance, startup, and technology. The fact that major publications write about it, and everyone reads it and wants to know about it, seems to bear that out. That is what notability is, something being worth knowing as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. I might agree that a single A round from a top or second tier VC doesn't guarantee notability, but with a second round and over $10 million raised from top tier firms, a company is more or less guaranteed to be notable. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete just doesn't do it for me, words like minor papers, raises money for notable companies, advertorial, scream WP:NOTAD, look it just isnt WP:N. maybe in the future.Boomgaylove (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Note - preceding "delete" comment made by a user now indefinitely banned for disruptive editing.Wikidemo (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The keepers in this case are right. The fact is this company was covered in the most respected news sources online and in print, and is referenced and cross-referenced thoroughly. Furthermore, I am full agreement with Wikidemo: when top-tier venture finance firms invest over $10 million in numerous rounds of funding, that's proof that the company is notable. For Wikipedia is to be a relevant compendium including notable startups and new technologies, it must retain entries like this.Tedklonsky (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: passes WP:ORG, multiple third-party references.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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.