Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair Observer
A search brings up nothing to show that this company is notable at this point in time. None of the sources on the article itself show notability as almost every single one is a primary source and the two that aren't usable. One of them only briefly mentions the company and its founders while the other one only shows that the company has been nominated for a non-noteworthy trip/internship to Silicon Valley. Not all awards are noteworthy, so just winning a trip to Silicon Valley is not in itself enough to show notability. It also doesn't help that it's also only a press release, which cannot be used as a reliable source at all. (It wasn't released by the company, but press releases aren't usable as reliable sources regardless of who sent it out.) Also, just because a company has been around for a few years doesn't mean that this gives the company notability. Sources from other countries would be usable as long as they were independent secondary articles that were by reliable sources, which the GSVA press release isn't. Another point to make is that just because something might be useful doesn't mean that it merits an article. Just because you think it deserves an article doesn't mean that it actually passes . The standards here are strict and we can't keep an article because  or  or because it could help advertise for the company. None of these are valid reasons to keep an article
— User:Tokyogirl79, 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORP||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:ILIKEIT (Wikipedia:Notability)