Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usabilla

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usabilla

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

No coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has beeen included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company's name is mentioned in passing by some UX bloggers, but I found no in-depth coverage of their software/services. Coverage about funding carries little or no weight in considerations of notability. —Ringbang (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No strong independent RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, poor sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (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.