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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HybridSite[edit]

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

Article is about a company with no coverage in independent reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 19 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 26 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After conducting my own searches in Google and the Plain Dealer (Cleveland newspaper) I conclude this company is currently non-notable as it fails WP:GNG. This is not surprising as web startups rarely attract enough coverage from reliable sources, though this could certainly change, but for the present, there is no way to independently verify the information in this article. Altamel (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything in the article is from primary sources. Extensive searching shows no reliable secondary sourcing anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 11 October 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.