Buy Me a Coffee: The Mashable article is a bit short.  The New Yorker article has only a brief mention, the Forbes article is from a contributor ( WP:FORBESCON ), and the Daily Dot/Passionfruit source is mostly a comparison chart.  QuietCicada chirp 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites .  QuietCicada chirp 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Based on Mashable and 2 new citations I have found: MediaMatters and this in-depth review at Influencer Marketing Hub .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A well-known and significant platform for crowdfunding, like Patreon.  Perhaps the article needs to be supplemented, but as a good stab it deserves to remain -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 11:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources.  Regarding the sources cited in the article and in this discussion, the New Yorker and Daily Dot articles are brief mentions; BuiltWith is a chart showing web visits; Forbes is a contributor article as the nom noted; Influencer Marketing Hub is a trade publication that appears to have native advertising; AlternativeTo is not a reliable sources; and the Media Matters and Mashable articles fail ORGTRIV because they are about a short-lived controversy involving the company.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Just not enough coverage, New Yorker is a name drop, rest are not terribly useful sources.  Best I could find was this in USA Today [11] .  Not strictly about the Coffee site, but has a few paragraphs about it.  Some coverage of the same event in Newsweek, which isn't a RS. I feel if we had some decent sources we could keep the article, but just not there yet.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also appears to be the same as the coverage in Media Matters and Mashable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Half-kratos21 ( talk ) 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : agree with Oaktree b and vroots.  S0091 ( talk ) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk ) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Also agree with the above, not convinced that any of the references meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, most appear to rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs/website.  HighKing ++ 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Lacks adequate evidence of notability, lacks sources that are both reliable and relevant enough.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete – This is close.  Forbes contributor and Mashable are the main WP:SIGCOV but isn't really WP:RELIABLE .  This is WP:TOOSOON , for now.  TLA tlak 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : only mentions from reliable sources.  Password (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 20 February 2024 (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: delete