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. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystifly[edit]

Mystifly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Run of the mill startup company which fails to pass NCORP. Unable to find any independent coverage beyond fundraising and product launch reports. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does have issues, but could quite easily be cleaned up. The sources are not particularly strong (as in, trade mags, rather than The Guardian or WaPo, probably reflecting the nature of the business), but they are there, and there's enough of them. And clearly this isn't a 'startup', as the nom suggests. So it's a 'keep & improve' from me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a weak argument. Please link independent, reliable and secondary sources which have covered this company in detail. The only sources I could find were routine funding news and product release announcements which are not sufficient to establish notability per CORPDEPTH. It is indeed a run-of-the-mill startup company. M4DU7 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Instantly perturbed by their website rocking the default WordPress favicon (seriously?), but the sources that can be found, while not exemplary and, as stated above, mostly trade mags, barely push it past the point of no return for me. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per DoubleGrazing. Article needs some clean-up. Other than that, the company, NOT a startup, has received some coverage and the sources in the article seem reliable. I also found a couple more reliable sources about the company: [1] and [2]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 8 March 2021 (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.