- 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Swiftly, 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)
trivial reviews; no substantial references; promotional article DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any substantial coverage. Even the techcrunch source's independence is unclear, since it uses the same images as the article. At the bare minimum it is too soon. If it had a huge user base and a following, then we'd have something to talk about. -- RM 22:37, 20 April 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.