Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOAT (platform)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT (platform)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was conflicted about accepting it. I recently was told that one way in such cases was to accept and nominate for deletion so that the community can decide. It has a lot of funding related clutter but also some sources like vogue and LA times may meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say keep on this one—between the L.A. Times' storyline coverage, ZDNet's coverage of the algorithms used by the company, and Forbes' investment coverage, I think this article has something to offer and passes WP:NCORP. This article does need to be rewritten, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I included the funding because I thought it was relevant to a young company. It certainly has WP:CORPDEPTH as I found many more articles but I didn't want to commit WP:OVERKILL. --Timothyplaya (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyplaya , I should remind you that you must declare your WP:COI if you are connected with the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection. I was surprised this was a business and then I started researching.--Timothyplaya (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Between the LA Times, Vogue, and a number of in depth WSJ articles, the references meet WP:NCORP. The "funding clutter" (assuming this is a reference to Footlocker?) has received a ton of coverage across a range of publications (e.g. Barron's, CNBC, Tech Crunch, GQ), so even this seems to be a notable enough inclusion. Pegnawl (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (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.