StatMuse : Only the 2 techCrunch are reliable, but doesn't somehow talking to StatMuse directly.  Looking at WP:BEFORE , it has nothing more.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 04:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep How does it fail GNG?  Also, how would the Fortune source not count as reliable?  Also worth noting this was the 3rd article I created that was nominated for deletion by the same nominator in an 11-minute span ( 1 , 2 )...  I do not have the time or energy to give an honest and equal effort trying to patch up all 3 at the same time to be honest.  All were given the same looking at WP:BEFORE gives nothing more reliable type of vibe, so I don't think too much thought went behind these nominations and even if they have merit (I will always AGF, so they do imo have merit), the nominations seem to be unfairly rushed in a spam-adjacent manner ("spam-adjacent" sounds harsher than what I'm trying to say, but can't find a better way to articulate that right now).  Soulbust ( talk ) 04:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found these sources I will sift through and see if they are suitable for incorporating into the article (but off a quick first glance, they do seem suitable for that): 1 2 3 4 5 6 .  Soulbust ( talk ) 04:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Sports , Websites ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG as it currently stands.  In addition, the sources provided by Soulbust appear to be WP:SIGCOV .  User:Let'srun 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "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 .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  None of the references meet the criteria since they all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or regurgitated PR/Announcement.  Fortune's "Meet the Startup" is PR and a puff profile.  All of the information about the company is provided by the company or people connected with the company (e.g. customer).  Fails ORGIND.  This Venturebeat article comes a few months after this Forbes article but the information is largely the same and has been provided by the company.  There is no "Independent Content" in either article in the form of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company.  Fails ORGIND.  This Springfield News-Leader article as well as This TechCrunch article are based entirely from PR and a follow-up interview to allow the founders utter OMG sounds.  Fails ORGIND This TechCrunch article is based on a company announcement on the same day , fails ORGIND This from Business Insider is based on a funding announcement and an interview, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH NFLPA article is PR, fails ORGIND This TechCrunch article is based on PR, fails ORGIND SBCAmericas is PR, fails ORGIND Gaming Americas is PR, also fails ORGIND None of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, just based on company PR and announcements and the usual marketing you'd expect from a startup.  HighKing ++ 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Based on the significant coverage shown by Soulbust.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus