Deletion of Zeek

Comment: because nobody has effectively countered SwisterTwister's deep analysis of the sources, except to suggest that we can trust that journalism occurred in "reliable sources" even with no examples of such given.  Simply saying "but it was covered by {laundry list}!" doesn't suffice -- ''how'' it's covered is critical.  If it's covered in a passing or run-of-the-mill or PR-ish way, we cannot go by that, unless we wish to cheapen this ''encyclopedia''.  At best for this subject, it's 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The article meets notability guidelines, and multiple  supporting it. Appears the article has evolved substantially from it's first draft and I don't see any promotional puffery. The article states facts and is well sourced. There is lots of room on wikipedia -- and this article may be of interest to researchers/readers. Since when does an article about a company supported by sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post not clearly deserve a place on wikipedia? This is an open and shut KEEP case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Agreed with David Gerard, and compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability (see above), plus the idea that inclusion in a list is meaningful for our purposes.  The  argument above is pretty compelling to me, which is why I ask for what I asked for.  I think it's going to have to come from another editor for me even to take a look at it.  If nothing like I've requested is supplied, consider my !vote a '''Delete''' (for now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Meets , although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. Some sources in the article and listed above provide coverage that is more on the routine side, while still providing some non-routine style coverage. However, other sources provide more comprehensive and thorough coverage, such as the examples provided below, which are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion (see the page's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeek&action=history Revision history), and does not have a promotional tone at this time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Only sources are trivial coverage of the subject; no substantial reliable coverage appears to exist. Does not meet  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: because article subject meets , and per . An Israeli company is going to have different types of coverage than a US or UK company, but it still meets  based on http://www.timesofisrael.com/stuck-with-a-store-credit-zeek-helps-you-get-rid-of-it/ Times of Israel, https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/27/zeek-series-b/ TechCrunch, and http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-gift-card-marketplace-co-zeek-raises-95m-1001142229 Globes. These are three examples of bylined articles offering significant coverage in publications with editorial oversight
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WORLDVIEW||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: It passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources are blatantly  and using these for notability is a violation of . Many of these sources quote the organisations employees and use it as a story source which is explicitly not allowed by . I am amazed that the Forbes/sites (not Forbes) has been considered a reliable source when it is very obvious that there is no journalistic oversight. In many of these sources presented, the amount coverage is so limited that the entirety of it has been pasted into this AfD. That's not indepth coverage. The rest of the "news" is essentially very brief pieces about funding which clearly show that they have been placed by the company. None of this is useful for notability. More importantly, I see this as a case of a COI editor pushing to "keep" the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:NOTPROMO||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: note that the article used to be much longer, but it was all unsourced, so I cut it to RSes a few hours ago. This appears to have originally been created as a puffery-filled promotional piece (see also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zelkind|recently-deleted Daniel Zelkind, which was part of the same cluster). I can see sources in GNews, but they're all funding rounds and ownership (which the article already covers) and promotional churnalism about what the company ''aspires'' to do - lots of trivia, but not much . There may be articles actually about the company that don't originate with the company and aren't about funding rounds and ownership which I've missed, of course. Be careful not to confuse coverage of http://zeek.forward.com/ Zeek the journal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I updated the article adding information which passes as"significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources exceeds far beyond just trivial coverage. Moreover, the company has won The UK and Israel business, was selected for Red Herring (magazine) 100 finalists. This is evidence of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I find the responses to my request above to be unsubstantial. Continuing with the crutch of a multiplicity of sources, and simply the opinion that the sources check out as significant non-promo coverage, isn't enough to counter SwisterTwister's analysis.  Also,  isn't necessarily as time-restrictive as suggested -- it's about whether a subject has ''yet'' proven itself notable. There's no timetable set for that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)