Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conductor (company)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conductor (company)

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

An article about a SEO company, created by a single-purpose account. Nothing in this article stands out that would make this company notable. Srittau (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's references demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Pburka (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests anything at all for accounting at solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article in New York Business Journal, this article in Internet Retailer Magazine (which was purchased from Thomson Reuters' Faulkner & Gray unit by F&G CEO Jack Love), this article from MediaPost Communications, this article from TechCrunch, and this article from The Next Web all provide significant coverage of Conductor.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Conductor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:CORPDEPTH pass: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 2 June 2016 (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.