Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formstack Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Formstack

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formstack

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

Recently started web company without any independent references, no obvious claims of notability Dmol (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like marketing to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.46.151 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — 89.130.46.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Have added plenty of refs for notability. This company is new (I hadn't heard of it before) but has extensive third party media coverage. Try googling next time. Little Professor (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I now change my vote from Keep to Merge with formspring.me. Most of the third party media coverage I added was related to the formspring.me web product rather than the parent company Formstack. I didn't realize formspring.me had its own wiki article, which renders this one redundant. There is hardly any third party coverage of Formstack as a company in its own right. Little Professor (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through these two articles and wondered the same thing myself. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Formstack is not the parent company of formspring.me. FormSpring.com spun-off formspring.me as a separate company and then FormSpring.com change it's name to Formstack.com. There is also plenty of press coverage of Formstack back when it was called FormSpring (and not referring to formspring.me). Noah Coffey 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Web startup company is not a mark against notability, especially when it has had so much press coverage for it and its products (formspring.me and related sites, in this case) in the few years of operation. More than enough reliable news sources to meet corporate or Web notability requirements. Steven Walling 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those participating should note that the company very recently changed its name from FormSpring to Formstack to avoid confusion with formspring.me, a very popular Web service it runs using its technology. Thus, a lot of previous coverage calls them FormSpring but may be referring to either the website or the company depending on the context. Either way, they've gotten quite a bit of press. Steven Walling 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has received significant coverage due to controversy about formspring.me --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- After some recent edits to the Formstack page, I am changing my !vote to Delete. turns out formspring.me is actually a separate company that was spun out by Formstack. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be a reasonable amount of press coverage for this company. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as User:Pdcook said, there seems to be enough coverage to establish notability, and it seems to be an independent company from formspring.me (but I'm not 100% sure). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (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.