Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeplink (company)
Per . TechCrunch clearly wrote about the Deeplink company, but the other sources either mention the company in passing (i.e. ''not'' "significant coverage" about "the subject") or are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". AngelList, for example - that has a partnership with CrunchBase, which is operated by TechCrunch, by the way - looks like a business directory and doesn't indicate notability. Kiip just mentions the subject in passing (and appears to be an advertising network). While The American Genius writes about the subject, it is a blog-like source. Mashable (@Yahoo! NZ) also only mentions the company in passing. In response to the "creator responds" remark that "Competing URX (company) has a smaller article with less sources ...". The size of the articles is irrelevant. Counting the number of sources will not tell you whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion, nor whether the sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This article should be judged on its own merit. (As a side note, I do think the article about URX has more reliable sources that discuss the subject, including ''The Wall Street Journal'', but not by much.) Earflaps, your claim that TechCrunch is "very reputable" is dubious. It certainly is not "very reputable" as a source for Wikipedia articles. Also, may I suggest you (re)read . --Special:Contributions/82.136.210.153|82.136.210.153
— [[User talk:82.136.210.153|talk]]), 13:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ORG||WP:SK (Wikipedia:Notability)