Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrowdOptic, Inc.

CrowdOptic, Inc.

CrowdOptic, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This company doesn't sound at all notable. It also appears to be part of a paid-spamming campaign, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 05:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. While there seems to be a whole smegstorm going on with that paid editing thing, I found what I reckon is enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this company to pass WP:GNG: see Fortune, Techcrunch, Techcrunch again, Business Week, and Forbes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Dylan's sources. Passes GNG and even with the paid editing doesn't appear too spammy. Deadbeef 10:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: enough coverage to establish notability.Vrac (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2014 (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.