Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catincan

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. czar ⨹ 04:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catincan

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

This site is not at all notable, has not had much success, is currently down or totally gone, and all the citations on the current page either do not actually reference Catincan at all or are just to the Catincan site itself and not an outside source Backfromquadrangle (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Site does seem to be gone. The one reasonable reference, a NYTimes article, doesn't actually mention the company. This is a good example of why it's best to wait a good bit of time before creating a WP article for a start-up ... most of them do not last, and do not have an impact. LaMona (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crowdfunding site/service of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. As above, NYTimes link is the only RS in article and does not mention Catincan. A search turned up incidental mentions, forum posts, and this brief article on crowdfundinsider.com which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2014 (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.