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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instabuggy

[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Light2021 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SwisterTwister tagged it for speedy deletion per CSD A7. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the A7, because there are some non local sources. But these sources are promotional writeups in trade publications, and these are not really under the usual sort of editorial control we require for reliable sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this has been deleted twice before, and this one contained nothing at all actually subst anf significant, simply PR and the intentions are clear. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of the sources are brief mention in industry journals; a large bulk of the article is simply a list of competitors, which is never a good omen for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; nothing to see here. The list of competitors indeed looks desperate. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 5 October 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.