Deletion of Beesfund

Comment: For an article that has 80 references, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to establish notability, it must be |significant and |in-depth coverage on the *company* containing |independent content consisting of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In other words, no Primary sources, no references relying on interviews/quotations/company announcements, no references based on crystal ball gazing into the future, no mentions-in-passing and no churnalism. As I said, none of the references qualify. I also wholeheartedly agree that this article is highly promotional and resembles marketing literature. It is chock-full of company-speak promotional statements and falls foul of . For example, the history section has 6 sub-headings with titles such as "Increasing interest" and "Further growth". By way of contrast, it has the same number of paragraphs as the Bank of America article. It contains other promotional statements such as "the founders own issuance served as an example to prove the legality of public issues of shares offered without a prospectus or memorandum" and "Beesfund wants not only startups but also mature companies to benefit from crowdfunding in Poland". The author continues to toe the company line while laying the "excuse" for not launching an accelerator by including a quote from Regiec laying the blame solely with the WSE. I'm tempted to edit the article but I doubt any editors who take the time to look at the references (and not balk at having to go through all 80) will quickly see that they fail the criteria. Topic fails GNG and NCORP and SPIP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:SPIP)