Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaarly

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaarly

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

I don't believe this company meets WP:NCORP. The secondary sources are reports about the company from 2011 when it was a startup, and I can't find anything more recent. The fact that the official website now belongs to a house cleaning service by the same name doesn't do much to strengthen its claims to notability. In addition, the article text is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found this techcrunch article which seems to indicate that the company might become notable at some point in the future, but not now. --bonadea contributions talk 19:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The housecleaning may just be a currently featured service? (Though it doesn't seem easy to get past that and see other services) The "About Zaarly" maerial further down the webpage has a better match to the article text. I did find one more recent source, an article from the Washington Post covering the emerging field but using Zaarly as an example ([1], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think that WP:NCORP is satisfied by the secondary sources present in the article where the primary topic is Zaarly. I do not think it matters that the 2ndary sources are from 2011, notability is not transient, so if it satisfied NCORP in 2011, it still does. I've done some copyediting to the citations to make it a little more apparent they are non-trivial news items; I also added the WikiProject Companies banner to the talk page so it appears in that groups alerting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 7 May 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, czar ♔ 23:39, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 17:48, 18 May 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.