- 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- YapStone, 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)
high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. Website Link does not even work. it is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable subject. Sample copy:
- ...platform that caters to global marketplaces (HomeAway, VRBO) and large vertical markets with high-volume complex transactions... Etc.
- Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a good source. I'm thinking the HuffPo is probably not a WP:RS as it is from a blogger, not staff. [1] is helpful, but doesn't really tell me if this company is out of the startup phase. There is another article on Forbes that might be written by staff, How A Poker-Game Brainstorm Produced Fintech Startup YapStone, but I haven't been able to see the article. There is a book on WP:BEFORE D1, Strategies for Philanthropy and Giving Back, that talks about ParishPay. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I also meant to comment sooner as there's enough showing deletion is the best option here considering what's listed is both non-substantial and then only existing for advertising the company itself, along with the other listed information, so there's honestly nothing to suggest we should honestly keep this with such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 November 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.