Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Floow Limited

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Floow Limited

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

minor award, minor investments, no major product. I removed spam, but there is no underlying `ny DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: An article on a technology firm featuring their appearance on an early-stage company list and receipt of a Queen's Awards for Enterprise. The 2016 WIRED article about their use of smartphone-based data gathering is probably more about product than company but could perhaps contribute towards supporting notability. (Similar text summarising the company's product proposition had been also placed at Usage-based_insurance#UK, which may be sufficient.) A case study of an earlier SMS-based product can also be found: [1]. Regarding the company itself, there is a relatively detailed interview-based item from 2014 here, but it is on the site of an entity which had given a Business Loan Fund grant so cannot be considered a fully independent source. I don't see the sum of the available sources as enough to establish WP:NCORP notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 13 January 2019 (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.