Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallcase (2nd nomination)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcase

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There was a relatively recent AfD in which several socks participated and have been blocked - see

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Mint appears to be non-reliable, TechCrunch can only be used to verify they exist, as it's a non-reliable source. Rest appear to be blogs or advertorials. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. I tried to rewrite this entity's page into survival state (duly assisted by
WP:ATD-M. Again... it depends on the general consensus derived from this discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you point to something that confirms this company is owned by

HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

HighKing there are few cues pointing towards it - 1, and 2. But, here's the catch... there is always a difference between "getting an investment" and "being backed". So, the confirmation is based on one's interpretation. Since, it's a company AfD discussion and you're an expert in this domain... I'll stick to your "final call". - Hatchens (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. Getting an investment is pretty much the same as "being backed" and neither mean that the investors/backers are the owners.

HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

HighKing, then it's a delete. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: Despite
WP:BEFORE I find it fails NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails GNG and also the subjective criteria. Nothing worth discussion. ─
^(talk) 19:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote at the previous AFD discussion.
talk) 16:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NCORP, as I cannot find enough independent coverage that makes this significant. Mario Jump 83! 08:36, 23 May 2022 (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.