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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdocs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY. The only SIGCOV I could find was about its Series C and D fundraises. Not enough to establish notability (every company that raises a Series D is not notable) Longhornsg (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The company is not notable, and the sources are weak e.g. TechCrunch is, as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources, not to be used to determine notability.

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.