Deletion of EzCater

Comment: Where, exactly, is notability supposed to lie here? A hell of a lot of re-hashed press releases. Content about the founder but not significant, independent and reliable sources talking about the subject - I don't see that. The arguments above do concern me that payment is probably involved somewhere in the process. In my view this fails  '''''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The applicable SNG for determining whether references can be used to establish notability is  and not GNG (as has been confirmed at the RfC at . The result is that "echo chamber" references which are based on company announcements, interviews, quotations, financial results, funding announcements, etc, fall outside of establishing notability as per  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:N||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: EzCater passes both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. The sources I provided meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a Wikipedia:Permastub|very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The Apress book has a case study about ezCater that says, "ezCater appeared to have taken its time to build a scalable business model and raised a significant amount of capital to boost its revenues to the point where it might be able to go public. While ezCater was in no hurry to get there, it appeared to have a clear idea of how it would be able to scale and was not being pushed by investor pressure to which other companies might succumb." This is independent analysis from the author Peter Cohan. That the case study includes quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire case study non-independent.The Bloomberg News article includes analysis by noting that "EzCater's funding round is the largest secured by a female founder and CEO in tech this year", while the ''Inc. (magazine)|Inc.'' article notes that "Online catering marketplace ezCater is not your typical unicorn--if the fact you've perhaps never heard its name doesn't make that readily apparent. For one thing, the company is based not in Silicon Valley, but rather in Boston. Its founder isn't a young man armed with an MBA, it's Stefania Mallett, a veteran executive who is now 63." That they include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire articles non-independent.The Bloomberg News and ''Inc.'' sources are about the company getting funding and being valued at $1.25 billion. But they are not just "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage) since they provide a substantial overview and analysis about the company.An AfD participant, Alalch Emis, wrote about a "Forbes non-staff" article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2017/01/11/ezcater-raises-35-million-food-business-catering-iconiq-capital/?sh=2b80e9c24c4e The 2017 ''Forbes'' article I provided is from "Brian Solomon, Former Staff". According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/, "Brian Solomon was a Forbes staff writer from 2011 to 2017."The same AfD participant wrote, "WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid." This is a defamatory allegation that is made without evidence against https://www.wsj.com/news/author/katie-roof Katie Roof, the writer of https://www.wsj.com/articles/ezcater-raises-100-million-for-catering-1529380861 ''The Wall Street Journal'' article and is a violation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPTALK)

Comment: If I compare this article's references with 's analysis table, almost none pass all 4 criteria (SIRS). I do feel that NCORP has raised the standard pretty high for corporations - but we should go by it. Therefore, this article should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: per HighKing. Forbes non-staff and TechCrunch are classic bad sources. WSJ reference is highly suspect too, looks paid. The guiding criteria here are Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage| criteria for identifying dependent sources. This article cannot fail  and be sustainable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: None of the references (including those posted by Cunard above) meet the requirements for establishing notability as per . If any Keep !voters believe there are references that meet the requirements, post a link below and lets see. As it is, topic may pass GNG (which is irrelevant for examining sources to establish notability as per the RfC at ) but fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:N||WP:NCORP)