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. MER-C 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99.co[edit]

99.co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. Light2021 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find funding rounds and a bit of promotional churnalism. The only non-promotional third-party coverage is the passing controversy over an employee - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Part of an extensive promotional campaign for the founder. Eduardo Saverin is notable, but not all the various firms in which he invested his money from Facebook. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Cheung, the only other article by this contributor. DGG ( talk ) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. This is one of many start-ups from the last two years, and it is too soon to know if it's notable yet. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as completely an advertisement with both the information and sourcing, none of it suggests otherwise better and this was clearly a PR-initiated campaign, therefore thr concerns largely outweigh any likely chances of acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speaking as a local, this company is just one of the many property websites here. We don't create article on each of them. There are very less sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (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.