Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storenvy

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Storenvy

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

Small non-notabnle unprofitable company, trivial in its field, among giants DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

The Wall Street Journal
Fox News
Techcrunch
Techcrunch
CNN
Book sources, each of which have a paragraph about Storenvy [1], [2], [3], [4].

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 13 May 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, czar ♔ 01:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sources listed by Northamerica1000 cover this subject substantially. I think it's too soon. It's small. Is it noted along with other companies in this competitive space? Sure. Is it notable on its own? I'm not seeing it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because the following sources do provide significant coverage: [5] (paywalled), [6], [7], [8]. The coverage is not trivial and is way beyond passing mentions. Regarding the additional sources I posted above, per WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several additional references to the article, including the ones from the Wall Street Journal and CNN Money. Seems like there is plenty of coverage to pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 27 May 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The size or profitability of a firm isn't what we base our inclusion decisions upon; it is the existence of sources from which a verifiable article might be built. This has copious hefty sources from very big publications (Wall Street Journal, etc.) showing in the footnotes — enough to pass GNG without even turning on the Google machine. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 3 June 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.