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 no consensus. SoWhy 10:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent advertisement, particularly significant as such right now in advance of an ipo. No references other than routine material on funding, and highly promotional tone throughout. The combination o fvery bborderline notability and clear promotionalism is a sufficient reason for deletion. (I tried rewriting, but there is no sourced material except for the funding, and that does not meet WP:NCORP. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article is poorly written, but sifting thru the usual PR info, one may find multiple coverage at TechCrunch and some pieces of its history are on the Wired: [1]. I also restored a reasonable intro from the history, which was replaces by a cut'n'paste PR-babble, probably by a company's marketroid. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems every one of the TechCrunch items is a mere notice of funding--and such notices do not count for notability , and they are generally simply copies of the press release. The refs might have passed muster before the current version of WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this was newly added, but this one is more than a mere notice of funding. I'm not claiming that this is sufficient for notability, but there's more there than you're seeing. Sancho 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on at least this and this. Could be swayed if these are shown to be non-independent. Sancho 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanchom: I don't believe these to be suffiently independent; pls see my comment below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various stuff from Danish media: 1, 2, 3 --Harthacnut (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff from Danish media: Full hour radio from Danish public broadcaster DR about the company: 4, profile about their development practices: 5
Delete: the sourcing offered above does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP, being largely PR driven and focused on company's hopes and aspirations (WP:SPIP). For example:
Tradeshift goes social with business apps. With more than 200 developers signed up to develop business apps on its platform, Danish electronic business start-up Tradeshift is looking more like Facebook for business than the simple electronic invoicing service that launched last year[2].
Tradeshift Frontiers innovation lab hopes to drive blockchain adoption in the global supply chain [[3].
Emphasis mine. Just promo 'cruft lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. "Hopes to drive" is especially telling; the company has not achieved anything significant just yet and is using Wikipedia for promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an advertisment. I would note that e-invoicing has a history dating back to the 1960s. Any company or technology that has contributed to a major innovation would presumably be documented somewhere other than a press announcement. Here the article says where (the company's founders) created the world's first large scale peer-to-peer infrastructure for e-business called Easytrade. This innovation was nominated for the European eGovernment Awards in 2009. - what innovation? Easytrade? Hmm...EDI goes back to at least the 1960s...and the Easytrade article only says itis based on modern internet technologies. These articles are often orphans or part of a walled garden that link only to other articles affiliated with the company. Most of this article seems to be about Easytrade anyway. — E-business and public sector telecommunications probably is an encyclopedic topic (that we don't have an article about yet). Seraphim System(talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are based on company announcements or rely extensively on quotations/interviews. None of the references contain intellectually independent analysis/opinion. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 10:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Staszek Lems rationale. Per plenty of notable references. The article is poorly written indeed but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2018 (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.