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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fattmerchant[edit]

Fattmerchant (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)

Not all independently notable with none of the sources actually being convincing, note the Forbes is only an interview and everything else is simply localized PR; my own searches have found nothing better regarding substantially significant coverage (only either trivial news or sprinkle-jacketed PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. The company also passes WP:AUD because it has received national news coverage, and furthermore, such coverage is from sources based in other states (e.g. New York, North Carolina). See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the WORL and Business Journal are local news simply talking about their own local businesses and, as said before, Business Journal is notorious for this about simply consisting of interviews and businesspeople talking about their own local businesses. The first two simply mention them a select number of times and that's simply about charging and pricing. The Sentinel articles say exactly what the company is, a "promising" starting company. None of these are actually substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The paywalled Orlando Business Journal article does not appear to be an interview. Local sources are not disqualified to apply toward WP:CORPDEPTH, particularly when other sources provide non-local coverage, contributing to passing WP:AUD. The age of a company is not congruent with topic notability per WP:NTEMP. See also: WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fast Company ref is an advertorial. The firm is not notable, at least not yet. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A company with some local notability but not much else; the coverage does not amount to "significant". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 1 August 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.