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. I would not have declined the speedy-- there is no indication of any significance DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adapti.me[edit]

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

This was rejected as a CSD but still fails notability today. This is a new startup with no significant independent press coverage. The two references given are both to the incubator that partially owns the startup. Zero articles appear in Google with any significant coverage of this company. And the user who created the page has a username strongly suggesting that they are one of the founders of the company. Perhaps in the future, but this is not even close today. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Selection as one of 5 participants in a start-up incubator programme round does not bring inherent encyclopaedic notability. Nor are my searches finding much: this brief piece is possibly the best but is light start-up coverage and not the standard of reliable coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2017 (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.