The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted but restored upon request of WP:SPA account Anwiley (talk · contribs); (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FCoverHound). Anwiley suggested that the existing coverage is sufficient, pointing to the following four links, which I'll discuss. 1) [1] is a Techcrunch article ""CoverHound Lands $4.5M From RRE, Bullpen & Blumberg To Become The Kayak Of Online Insurance" from 2013. While it is in-depth, TechCrunch covers such events regularly. It is in essence "business as usual"; a start-up getting few millions is nothing that unusual, but it will generate coverage at sites that specialize in chronicling this. Second is a CNET article, [2], "Google may bring auto insurance shopping service to US", which speculates that Google may have some business ties to CoverHound. Nothing worthy of encyclopedic attention here, particularly as it is a speculation. Third, the Boston Globe [3] article just mentions it in passing, this fails the in-depth requirement very clearly.Finally, [4] is an article from PropertyCasualty360 ("A Summit Professional Networks Website") titled "New CoverHound funding allows for expansion in the insurance marketplace"; the site doesn't look reliable or mainstream at all. Overall, I stand by my assessment: despite few articles in minor outlets, some of which are little different from PR / business as usual / we exist pieces, there is nothing to make this pass WP:COMPANY. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)