Deletion of Threadless

Comment: Note that  and  are guidelines based on the ''existence'' of sources, not whether they are already in the article, so doing a Google first can indicate whether an article is a tagging or AFD situation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CORP)

Comment: While I would certainly agree that the article needs better citations than the ones it currently has, and therefore may currently fall afoul of , I strongly disagree that the article fails  because it's a notable company that has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources multiple times, which is the primary criterion listed on 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CORP||WP:CORP)

Comment: The references cited mention Threadless as an example.   This is not sufficient for , which requires that the company be the ''subject'' of the source (this is why the |Google Test is no good for demonstrating notability - Google does not distinguish between examples and subjects, yet we must in WP).  A source that has crowdsourcing as its subject can be used to demonstrate the notability of crowdsourcing, not of every 25-employee private company mentioned in the the source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GHITS)

Comment: passes  with the NPR and CNNMoney coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)