Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remitly (2nd nomination)

: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. I do not find the arguments for keep persuasive, as there are no sources to back up these assertions of notability. DGG's rationale has debunked the usefulness of the sources in the article, so we are left with a failure of WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Remitly]]=

AfDs for this article:

:{{la|Remitly}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Remitly_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Remitly}})

Every reference here is either a mere notice, a promotional write up, or an article about the general industry where the firm is only mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV. The first AfD was closed in error, IMHO. WP:TOOSOON indicates deletion, not keeping. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep for now this is a company expanding rapidly and handling 121 billion in transactions. I think we have enough for WP:BARE and more will follow. WP:NORUSH. Wm335td (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Would appreciate more comments! Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep because it seems plenty notable to me, if only based on Bezos' and Schmidt's involvements.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Bearian. "Rapidly expanding" (reliable source for that?) isn't a reason to keep and regarding the involvement of Bezos and Schmidt, notability is not inherited. If it becomes notable in the future, we could certainly revisit. Waggie (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

: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.