Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClauseMatch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClauseMatch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Promotional? Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a case of too soon for this company. One of the two sources is a passing mention only. Fails WP:CORP and doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I authored the original article. The company has won multiple awards for its technology and is in the same category as a number of other fintech companies which have Wikipedia entries. What would it take for it to be considered eligible for a wikipedia page?Sprintercourse (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are the multiple awards and what sources do you have to support the awards being given.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2015 (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.