Deletion of Locus.sh

Comment: Not notable. Doesn't meet  or . —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: References are weak and fails the criteria of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: per  The intent of the article is clearly to promote the company and its products. {{noping|Pranay 0709}} who self-identifies as {{tq|from the brand team of Locus}} {{diff|User_talk:Northamerica1000|856175451}} writes that {{tq|the deletion has left us with serious brand erosion and repercussions across our ecosystem}}. {{diff|User talk:HighKing|856179331}} Well, we don't care. We're an encyclopedia. Notable companies don't need a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia needs articles (about notable subjects), not the other way around. If a brand suffers from NOT having an article, then it shouldn't have one. The number of sources is artificially inflated, and for the most part, those sources are redundant. Seven sources for "They raised $2.75 million in 2016 through series A funding and $4 million in 2018 through Pre-series B funding" is ridiculous. The recognition section is absurdly inflated. For example, "Locus was featured in the Top 100 Startups To Watch in 2017." is sourced to an "article" on the website of a "Recruitment Specialist", sutrahr.com. The Aegis Graham Bell Award in the Data Science category is a non-notable award by a school and the Forbes ’n Under n’ a perennial source of non-notable people is not an award the company has received. After removing all the inappropriate content, like the list of customers, funding rounds, job descriptions and other companies the founders were involved in, almost nothing would be left. If this company somehow manages to make an impact and actually achieve its stated goal to automate all the human decisions involved in sending a package, there will likely be sufficient in-depth, independent reporting to write an encyclopedic article. {{pb}} The socking, failure to properly declare a CoI and failure acknowledge paid contributions gives me no confidence that it is possible to maintain a neutrally worded article about this company
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMOTION)

Comment: I've looked at the ''new'' sources and it strikes me that those arguing to Keep haven't gotten their heads around the concept of "Intellectual Independence" as per . It states ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: References fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a brand vehicle, and this new entry fails to address the previous notability concerns. Celebrating "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Power~enwiki&diff=prev&oldid=856011422 seating" on Wikipedia or "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Locus.sh&diff=prev&oldid=856179872 brand equity damage" due to deletion is a concerning indication that the editor is not |here to build an encyclopedia and is bordering on a |legal threat. The principles would be well advised to consider brand equity damage from failing at gaming Wikipedia. That being said the article still fails inclusion criteria on its own merits for |CORPDEPTH
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION||WP:NOTHERE||WP:THREAT||WP:CORPDEPTH)