Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teemu.cod (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 9 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amberstudent.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Companies. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Companies|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Companies. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


Companies deletion

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amberstudent

Amberstudent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ROTM platform/company that fails the notability test. Refs are routine product listings, fundraising announcements and PR stuff. The article reads Iike a promotion of the company. Teemu.cod (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (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.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTTNews

RTTNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. No independent sources found. Daask (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (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.
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. Consensus is that the article fails to meet WP:NCORP or requires a complete rewrite. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

AfDs for this article:
Vecteezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.
    both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.
    Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.
    In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cow Company

AfDs for this article:
The Cow Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe the article meets notability policy requirements.

In addition, there is a COI (which i have added to the article) - the original article creator User:MarcosAlvoK is the owner of the Company, MARCOS ALVO. www.thecowcompany.com The user does not have a talk page. Their creation and writing was what initiated the advert tag. Given the lack of citations, stub-nature of the article, questionable notability and the COI I believe it should be deleted.

The previous request for speedy deletion (in my view rightly initiated very soon after the article was created by the owner of the company) was opposed/rejected by User:Appable on the basis that the article had claimed credible significance by including a link to a media piece on the "critical acclaim" of the shows run by the company. In the context of the COI, a conflicted inclusion of a small media item on critical acclaim in Chile does not seem to me to meet the bar for a credible claim of significance. I'm not convinced the company owner demonstrated the article as meeting the claim of significance, let alone the claim being credible. Something may be notable in small or specific circles (eg my ability to make a great linguine is notable among my friend group) but not meet the general notability requirements for appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia.

Whisky and more (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have fixed this nomination so that it actually exists fully on the nomination page, rather than {{subst:afd2}} being applied to the daily list instead. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Some coverage about the theater company doing stuff over Zoom [4], [5], [6] Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are just passing mentions and not sufficient for establishing notability, imo. Mooonswimmer 04:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:From WP:WHYN
    "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)"
    Those linked articles (while helpful!) are all about one aspect of TCC being doing zoom productions and when searched for, mostly TCC's own website/Facebook page etc. come up. A question (am a fairly new editor!) - Does that coverage meet the bar for "significant coverage"? If you consider it does, is there then not a presumption that essentially every company with some article written about them online could have its own article on Wikipedia? Would that be consistent with our mission/intent?
    To me, the best yardstick is whether all the available reliable and secondary sources (not those TCC's own website/pages) would enable, consistent with WP:WHYN, a whole article to be written instead of the current few sentences and list? I'd personally struggle to write such an article. Whisky and more (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable films produced, any coverage is mostly passing mentions. Mooonswimmer 04:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV, and company appears to produce only one production per year, using mostly non-notable directors. Do they produce shows in a noteworthy theatre? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I’ve been able to find or see by searching. Whisky and more (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pronto. Without better references, this can't be kept. Deb (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2024 (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.
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 keep‎. ✗plicit 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaCast Education

ChinaCast Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article says ChinaCast Education Corporation is the leading for-profit provider of post-secondary education and e-learning services in the People's Republic of China. However, no information can be found on Chinese search engines, and in fact, the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability.Zhuo1221 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3030 Press

3030 Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks official information.And less well-known.On the Web, the company's information can only be found on Facebook.The company cannot be found on well-known websites such as Google Scholar.The introduction is similarly brief, with no important citations AYAO32269 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SamLogic

SamLogic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this company itself, and the products don't get much reliable coverage either. The Swedish article is the exact same as the English article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Son Records

Son Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A notification concern was raised about this article. After quadruple checking pretty much every search term I could. I cannot find any sign of any coverage of this organization whatsoever beyond the currently listed BBC article, which seems to provide tangential coverage only. Unless I missed a source here in my search, I think that may mean this organization may fail WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Fish

Lightning Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a list of games, suggesting redirect to Get Fit With Mel B. IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:THREE and it only uses primary sources. All I see is a list of games to keep the article up. It also doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bean Games

Black Bean Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually a list of games, doesn't appear sufficiently notable. Suggesting redirect to Milestone (Italian company). IgelRM (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O~3 Entertainment

O~3 Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with a list of games. Bill Gardner should probably be mentioned somewhere, but this publisher doesn't appear sufficiently notable. IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Leaf Market

AfDs for this article:
True Leaf Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous AfD was sock-produced; turns out much of the content was likewise produced by a now-blocked UPE--and I see now that there is quite a bit of spamming done by UPEs. Notability is highly questionable, besides the promotion: Google proves the company exists, but I see nothing proving notability per GNG or NCORP. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also can't find SigCov, burn the promo BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (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.
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 redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Kansas. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCCC-LP

KCCC-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct low-power radio station with zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialdirect

Dialdirect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any sources proving notable, other than advertising. Not to be confused with the UK company "Dial Direct". GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the nominator is now indefinitely blocked for copyright problems.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Amount of failed verifications makes me wonder if aside from the from the company existing, the rest of the article is fictitious. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:08, 13 April 2024 (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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance

Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and needs more WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSP. At the present moment, the coverage provided is considered trivial. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyagold

Priyagold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 20 April 2024 (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.
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 redirect‎ to Open-access operator#France. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

Kevin Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at WT:AFD:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (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.
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 speedy keep‎. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts

AfDs for this article:
Inshorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [19] was closed four days before this AFD was opened with a suggestion that sources mentioned in that discussion should be added to the article. This nomination feels premature. ~ A412 talk! 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. I only see one reliable and independent source about this company; that is not enough coverage. Also, much of the text is about one business person who helped to found it, rather than the company itself. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an entire 19-page-long chapter in an OUP book completely about this topic: doi:10.1093/oso/9780198879657.003.0005. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Contributor892z (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, a TROUT to the nominator for bringing this AfD 4 days after the prior one was closed as keep, and compounding the issue by not ensuring that the sources identified in that recent discussion (in which they participated) were either added to the article or listed here. It just creates more work for the limited group of editors who participate at AfD. It also makes closing more difficult because the closer has no easy way to determine if those sources were considered by delete !voters. Aside from that, as Asilvering noted (and echoing AusLondonder, who identified the link in the previous discussion) there is an entire chapter about the company in an Oxford University Press publication, so presumably no self-publishing issues there. I cannot read the chapter, but the abstract strongly suggests WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH are met - It's even titled "Inshorts: A Success Story of Short-Form Journalism" and the TOC on the sidebar suggests thorough coverage. Two other links AusLondonder found and not mentioned yet here and again here, both of which appear superior to the existing sources in the article. I'm at weak keep because I can't read the Oxford Press chapter and I'm not certain whether the newspapers are among those known to accept paid content. But under the circumstance I can't get to delete without those answers. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:27, 21 April 2024 (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.
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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SciTech (magazine)

SciTech (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, and move to SciTechDaily. Although its URL has always been scitechdaily.com, the site was originally called Sci Tech Daily Review; it is currently called SciTechDaily (one word) but the name appears variously as SciTech Daily or Sci Tech Daily, making the search for coverage trickier than it may seem at first. Coverage establishing notability include the 1999 review in The Independent which rated Sci Tech Daily as "the best science news site" at the time – better than Science Daily, The New Scientist and Scientific American, "if you [could] accept its perfunctory design". More recently, there was an in-depth review in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries in 2015, which briefly covers the history of SciTechDaily; describes its format; and analyzes its content in comparison with Science Daily, noting that "SciTechDaily appears to edit sources more heavily for readability and publishes fewer articles overall and so may be preferred by those who find ScienceDaily overwhelming". The fact that it was nominated for a Webby led to a 2002 article in USA Today, about how the founder and her business partner set off 1,000 rockets in New Zealand to celebrate. There are many other reviews and articles recommending scitechdaily.com in newspapers such as The Courier Mail in Brisbane (2002) and The New York Times (1998) and again in 2000; industry trade publications such as Design News (2000); and academic journal articles such as The Lancet in 2000. These and other links have been added to the expanded article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this SciTechDaily is a popular science website, the most relevant notability criteria is WP:WEBSITE rather than WP:NCORP. The sources listed above demonstrate that the website fulfills WP:WEBCRIT #1 and #2 (short list for Webby award). @Hemiauchenia: Request reconsideration of expanded article in light of the above. I have also added one more article from New Zealand Herald since yesterday about SciTechDaily following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2024 (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.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALPHA Technology Group Limited

ALPHA Technology Group Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not meet the notability requirements. The references included are, bar one, based on press-releases or non-in-depth coverage. It's a non-notable holding company that was founded very recently. JeffUK 12:01, 5 April 2024 (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.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INVNT Group

INVNT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVNT, which was an article about INVNT Group's subsidiary. My main concern comes in regards to whether the trade publications establish notability. TLAtlak 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I encourage all contributors to this AfD to read the linked AfD. There is detailed analysis of source tables, which leads to a conclusion that neither the parent nor subsidiary is notable. Trade publications are not sufficient in this context, even in great number. Local Variable (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked through the sources in the article and read through the subsidiary company AfD. Not seeing any sources that fully meet WP:SIRS. Rupples (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - INVNT which previously got deleted is a subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. While some news references cover both entities, not all do. Hence what happened with INVNT should not influence the outcome here. Here are some of the better sources for this company that show it meets WP:NCORP: thedrum, Exeleon Magazine, Reader's Digest, Event Industry News, CEO World. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are absolutely not reliable sources in the context of NCORP (and the higher degree of scrutiny it requires). The problems with the Reader's Digest source was explained by @AusLondonder: in the last AfD: it's plainly promotional. Local Variable (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the INVNT AFD, there were claims suggesting that Reader's Digest post is an advertisement. Nonetheless, I believe that such a reputable publication would not jeopardize its integrity by violating laws concerning the disclosure of paid advertisements or sponsorships. It is legally mandated to disclose any such financial relationships. Imagine the PR nightmare such publication would have if it was discovered that they have posted Ads without disclosures. Additionally, the FTC imposes substantial fines on publications that fail to disclose advertisements (up to $46K USD per incident). Reader's Digest is not a mom and pop publication to risk such fines. You can also check this example here of an article they posted that clearly indicates "Promoted Content," and THIS ONE states "Unbiased Partnership," so if anyone is claiming that Reader's Digest is posting undisclosed paid ads, you better provide solid evidence.
    Most of the remaining articles I provided have detailed coverage about INVNT Group. While it is your opinion that they are not reliable sources, it is my opinion that they are. None of these publications are mom and pop and all have editorial oversight.
    In addition here are some traffic stats from these publications for last month from similarweb.com:
    ReadersDigest.co.uk 1.2 Million visits
    thedrum.com 2.1 million visits
    ceoworld.biz/ 1.1 Million Visits
    exeleonmagazine.com/47K visits
    eventindustrynews.com/ 33k Visits Icesnowgeorge (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I've ever come across a reliable source that uses a .biz TLD. Local Variable (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The Drum: Well, for starters, it's written by the managing director of the company. Not WP:INDEPENDENT at all.
    2. Exeleon Magazine: It looks like you can fill out a form to get featured. I don't think this is a RS either.
    3. Reader's Digest: This post contains affiliate links, so we may earn a small commission when you make a purchase through links on our site at no additional cost to you. Read our disclaimer. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.
    4. Event Industry News: This article is brought to you in association with Macroart. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.
    5. CEO World: Not WP:RELIABLE, per this. TLAtlak 10:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My own analysis of the sources largely backs up User:I'm tla.
    The Drum fails WP:ORGIND - written by the MD of one of the subsidiaries
    Exelon doubtful independence for notability. The magazine's About us Exeleon Magazine is one of the leading global platform for leaders and entrepreneurs to showcase their story[20] Note "their story", companies/people ask to be featured, drafts sent back for approval[21] so basically writes what the company says about itself.
    Readers Digest. The article explains what 'brand storytelling' is and there is a bit about the company interspersed with quotes from company executives. Tells the reader what the company does, lists awards and a brief history. May satisfy WP:SIRS criteria, but it doesn't have much depth.
    Event Industry News. Trade journal, mostly not to be used to establish notability WP:TRADES. Basically, it's showcasing the company.If your agency has a fitting story to tell, get in touch[22]
    CEO World. Looks independent. Most of the article concentrates on Scott Cullather but there is some content on the company and the piece is written in a neutral way; still, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH
    Overall, the Readers Digest piece is the only one which may count towards notability, but I'm not altogether convinced. Rupples (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Reader's Digest piece is puffery and relies on quotes and information from the company and execs, for me it is not Independent Content. HighKing++ 14:52, 8 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celerant Technology

Celerant Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to reprints of press releases and partnership announcements. ~ A412 talk! 08:24, 3 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IXL (interactive agency)

IXL (interactive agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is thinly sourced and has only been marginally improved since 2011. Unclear to me if the company was ever significant. William Graham talk 01:54, 3 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 00:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Army

AfDs for this article:
Classic Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company GraziePrego (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (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.
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. Complex/Rational 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Marie Models

Irene Marie Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A modelling agency that is no longer operating. Notability seems to rely on some of the models represented by the agency and the agency's owner but notability is not inherited. The sources advocate more for the owner rather than the agency although some are unavailable to me in Europe. Searches revealed almost nothing, but again that may be an issue with EU/ USA internet rules. Appears to fail WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:19, 2 April 2024 (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.
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 keep‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LesserEvil

AfDs for this article:
LesserEvil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this page for deletion for not establishing its notability in 2022 and I've now realised it has been recreated. Admittedly, the article now has more sources than it did then but as can be seen from the table below, there are still no sources that count towards GNG or ORGCRIT. They are almost all either small local newspapers or specialist trade publications. In any case, the sources either largely depend on quotes or read like press releases. It should be deleted.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Unknown where Pitchbook gets their info from but doubtful it is independent.     WP:ORGTRIV Merely an entry into a database ✘ No
  The article consists largely (though) not entirely of quotes   IB seems to be an indutry blog largely publishing press releases, not a secondary source as such   barely ✘ No
  Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release   I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know   WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local ✘ No
  Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release   I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know   In any event, WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local ✘ No
Own company website history
   Obviously the co's own coverage is not independent ✘ No
  Large quotes and the article simply rattles off facts that likely came from the company, not much evidence of their own journalism but not as quote-heavy as some of the others   The HBJ seems to largely publish press releases, but I am unsure about its journalistic practices   Very doubtful about its circulation per WP:AUD but the coverage is more in-depth than the other articles ✘ No
  Largely quotes   I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know   WP:AUD local newspaper ✘ No
Danbury's Financial Report
   Presumable   I presume it is   The City of Danbury's financial report is not significant is a primary source ✘ No
  Many quotes; reads like a press release   Reads like a press release   It's a specialist trade blog/magazine ✘ No
  Mostly quotes   Reads like a press release   It's a specialist trade blog/magazine ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added multiple additional RS with SIGCOV, removed a few of the worst press-release ones and the content sourced only to them. I think this subject makes it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, none of the sources added amount to to RS SIGCOV. They are:
    Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add that Forbes piece. I added Men's Health, Business Insider, E! Online, Bon Appetit, Baking Business, Prevention, WFSB, Self, and Eat This, Not That, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the confusion on my part. I'll deal with them one by one:
    • Men's health is link 8. I don't think a review of a single product establishes notability either of the company or of their product line such that WP:NPRODUCT applies.
    • Business Insider [31] is paywalled but seems to be just another review of a single product.
    • E! (link 5 above) is indeed trivial coverage of a single product in a Top 15 list.
    • Bon appetit (link 7) is a slightly less trivial review of a single product. It's a few paragraphs of prose rather than a terse couple of sentences in a top 10 list. This surely still can't amount to SIGCOV of the company though. Is the company notable because a reviewer liked their pink salt popcorn?
    • Baking Business [32]: reads suspiciously like a press release. I've found two posts with almost identical wording ([33] and [34]). It's almost certainly a press release.
    • Prevention [35] is a one-line mention of the company in a top 30 list.
    • WFSB [36] has several problems. The article is largely composed of quotes. It's not independent. Likewise the 1min57s reportage. WFSB is also a newstation local to Hartford.
    In my view none of these establish a presumption of notability for the company or their products. They are all reviews of a single product, entries in a Top X list, press releases or otherwise not sources we count for notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
    While this is true, the article is effectively about the company's line of snack products, and by WP:NPRODUCT, In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic.
    I would be inclined, in this case, to count substantial reviews of their product line, though I have yet to look at the sources added by Valereee. ~ A412 talk! 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point. If there were substantial reviews of the company's product range I might be inclined to agree (subject obvs to the reviews being substantial reliable and independent). But as you can see from my reply to Valereee, none of the new sources amount to that. They are either reviews of individual products, or top 10 list entries or a press release. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources that have been added would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharma LLC

Biopharma LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have previously nominated this for PROD (and also for SD, before that), but the nomination wasn't deemed uncontroversial enough and I was advised to open an AfD. The rationale is the same as in the PROD nomination:

I would like to renominate the article for deletion again, on the grounds of WP:G5. I agree that my SD nomination was too early. The only substantial edits to this page were by confirmed sockpuppets of Bodiadub and Yuraprox, and User:1sonng. I think that 1sonng is a sockpuppet of Yuraprox for reasons written in this SPI. (The said SPI had been closed because 1sonng hadn't edited for a long time.) If you disagree with my judgement of 1sonng, feel free to deprod. I do not think edits of any other users to this article are significant.

Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment my review of this article and its Russian and Ukrainian translations suggests it meets the notability criteria. The Ukrainian version just needs some work on its tone. If the reason for this deletion is the issues that the creator has, I agree to take the necessary actions such as deletion. But in terms of notability, there is no doubt and my comment is keep.Dejaqo (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dejaqo, it looks like you are arguing for both deletion and keep. Please bold only the option you are advocating for. Otherwise your comments just cancel each other out. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is that the article was created by banned editors, which is a policy-based reason for deletion. I used AfD because it is not completely uncontroversial that one of the substantial editors is a sockpuppet. Janhrach (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because socks have edited the article doesn't mean we automatically delete. The sock diffs are stale and can easily be fixed by going through and removing ones that are questionable, and I don't see any reason for a full-scale deletion at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)

Credibly (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP:NCORP as the sources aren't reliable, although I'm more willing to be proven wrong than usual as they at least don't outright look like paid placements. I think the best three sources are the reviews of their business loan products by Money, Forbes, and Newsweek. I'm unclear if money.com is reliable, I'm unclear if "Personal Finance Writer" and "Loans Writer" on forbes.com is WP:FORBESCON or not, and I don't know what "Contributor" entails on post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK. The rest of the sources are PR reprints, and some awards that I don't think give notability. ~ A412 talk! 06:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 8 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 11:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kontakt.io

AfDs for this article:
Kontakt.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Contested draftification. Jfire (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 15 April 2024 (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.
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. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5ire

5ire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding (WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements (WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 talk! 09:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Let's delve into the article's content before we explore the sources. The focus here is on the company's collaborations. Based on the information, as outlined in the sources, their core mission is to provide blockchain-based services. This focus on partnerships makes sense – the involvement of notable private and public organizations lends significant weight to the company's work. National and international collaborations can elevate the importance of a project and showcasing its potential. To my mind, focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative. For example, titles for this company were used by the media, which in my opinion might make the article out of the encyclopedia mode, such as 'Sustainability-Focused Unicorn', 'India's 'fastest-growing blockchain unicorn', 'Green revolution with 5ire blockchain', or 'HOW 5IRE IS BUILDING A SUSTAINABILITY-FOCUSSED LAYER 1 BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM' and etc. The centrality of collaborations to the company's mission is why the article focuses heavily on these key partnerships. After its token was listed, this article became the target of repeated attacks. The content was constantly edited, sometimes deleted entirely, and sometimes filled with irrelevant ads to be tagged for issues. Sources that I added recentlly ([37], [38], [39]) + other source in article, discuss a different aspect of the company, focusing on its internal workings (mechanism and performance) rather than its collaborations. The extensive coverage surrounding this company is likely due to its rapid growth. Established in 2021, it became a unicorn company in 2022. However, the sources identified, focus significantly on the company. In my judgment, informed by the articles I've created and edited, this article meets Wikipedia's Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requirements. YaseroSari (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was hoping this one would just go as an expired PROD because although I don't think it is notable, I don't think it is nothing either. A very young company that has managed to secure significant seed funding, it may well become notable, and it is probably just WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, now there is a keep vote, let's look at these sources. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and so sources must meet WP:SIRS (although, actually, all GNG sources should meet that. But that is moot). The thing to note here about these three sources, and all the article sourcing, is that it is reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (pay attention to note d in the policy). These are news sources telling us about how they have secured $100 million funding, and also telling us about the stock market valuation - which is high, but we have seen that before in tech companies, many of which only became notable when they crashed and burned. Reporting the funding and valuation, no matter how many sources do it, is still news reporting, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is a useful guideline to consider on that score. To look at this another way: what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? Note that the lead of the article currently only really tells us that they are notable for having secured money and a big paper valuation. I'd be content with a redirect if a suitable target were known. I don't think there is an article to be found here yet, and the sources do not meet SIRS, and so this is not notable for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I voted to keep it, but I do have some reservations about YaseroSari's idea that I'd like to discuss further. I do not accept this: focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative, You can focus on the company's core strengths and fundamentals by keeping the tone neutral. Even this move helps to prove the subject's notability. Anyway, I think an article focusing on the company's foundation and services would have been more informative. I also disagree with Sirfurboy, that stated what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? The Partnerships section of this article explains exactly what services this company provides. If this part was written better, it would specify the services of this company more clearly. If this company does not provide a efficient services, why should these organizations, which are considered notable, cooperate with this emerging company? This explanation of mine is not to prove the notability of this company by their partnerships, but to prove that this company provides services that they need. The source of each collaboration states the reason for it and what service they used and aslo more collaborations can be found on Google. It needs to be rewritten to highlight its services and base, not to be deleted.Dejaqo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The partnership section shows what they are doing, but not what they are doing that is notable. It would be the section to focus on though. Do we have WP:SIRS sources discussing a notable product/output? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Indian company's rapid ascent has caught the eye of both domestic media within a year and even some Arabic sources, likely due to its Dubai headquarters. A quick Google search turns up a wealth of information, including articles. Finding three sources to show WP:GNG, shouldn't be too much trouble·Gedaali (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit frustrating. This argument is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The relevant guidelines here are WP:NCORP and we are looking for sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AfD is not a vote, and the time to actually find the sources and discuss them is now. I am not adamantly against this page existing. But what sources exist that show this is notable as a company, and not just a startup with a big valuation? If we can't answer that question, we should not be voting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. My comment was to check if the current sources in the article would be enough, as I noticed from the edit history that some unacceptable sources were removed. This company has been making headlines for three reasons: first, it achieved unicorn status. Second, its token was listed on exchanges. Third, its collaborations have garnered a lot of media attention. About the first, as I red, you believe its WP:TOOSOON. In the second case, you would raised a concern that the sources might be too specific to cryptocurrency. In the third case, you clearly rejected it. I bring again some of the sources that I think meet the criteria. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and... . This article has potential, but I think there might be ways to strengthen it.Gedaali (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the sources provided, and I think the Economic Times source actually has analysis, but in general, the rest of the provided sources fall short on significant coverage, basically reprinting the funding announcement of "5ire raised money on a 1b+ valuation, here's what they said they're doing with it". ~ A412 talk! 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sourcing. No answer to my query above asking for which of those 8 sources meet CORPDEPTH, so I have analysed them all. As I say, 3 of them are from the Economic Times and count as one. That is moot too because only one of the Economic Times articles has anything substantive. My analysis lacks some work I did not check the reliability of sources that failed on other criteria. My feeling is they all look reliable, but appearances can be deceptive. I also did not check the independence, which will be affected if we find a press release or evidence of a press release that they are written off. My analysis is my own, and I am happy to discuss any points made. Here is the table:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [40] [41] [42]
     Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group.   There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28    
Tech in Asia [43]
     Probably reliable, I just haven't checked.   "And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction."   It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis.  
inc 42 [44]
   Is this off the back of a press release?   Probably. I haven't verified.   There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.   Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.  
Business Standard [45]
   Is this off the back of a press release?   Probably. I haven't verified.   There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.   Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.  
Money Control [46]
   Is this off the back of a press release?   Probably. I haven't verified.   There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.   Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting  
Mint [47]
   Is this off the back of a press release?   Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different.   There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis.   Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting.  
My summary: we have one source counting towards notability, but sources must be multiple. We are not there yet. I also note the source that points out lack of any products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of issues with your analysis. The Tech in Asia article seems quite significant. With over ten paragraphs, and repeated mentions of 5ire (10 times), it appears to offer a detailed exploration of the topic. Why wouldn't you consider it significant? Do you consider it as a "passing mention"? I did not see this website among the unreliable news websites that you doubt its reliability. Also there are two other sources from same website, The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’ and 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund. Regarding the second source of the Economic Times, reference number 4 and 5 are essentially the same and the problem is presented in the link. Anyway, 5ire wins the AIBC 2022 'Social Impact Project of the Year' award, this article looks like it covers the subject quite significantly. In my opinion, this article meets the WP:GNG because of the significant coverage it receives from reliable sources, as evidenced by the WP:SIGCOV. Also, I'm not sure about reliability and independence of Blockchain Unicorn 5ire Unveils a New Approach Towards Sustainability Pratik Gauri, CEO - 5ire, please check it out. Gedaali (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are commenting on an NCORP AfD. So I have repeatedly mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the relevant test for significant coverage:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

You are new to AfD, and very welcome here, but I think you are missing something here. Not surprising. NCORP AfDs have a lot to consider. But what have we got about this company that allows us to write more than a stub that tells us it has a big valuation? What notable thing does it do? The sources considered above indicate a lack of product, so it is not just this AfD asking that question. That last one you just asked me to look at purports to answer the question, but it doesn't. All it tells us is that it is a proof of stake blockchain. Sorry... a sustainable proof of stake blockchain. Whatever that means. I mean... all proof of stake is eminently more sustainable than proof of work. But How is that notable? I suppose it may become notable if people start using it. But it isn't yet. But then, you might say that at least that source is telling us about a product. Except it is telling us about a product in 5ire's words with 5ire's diagrams and 5ire's examples. That piece is clearly not independent. So nope, we can't use that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate the clarification. I think your last explanation was about Outlook, perhaps we discuss that another time, but for now. About 3 sources of Tech in Asia and 2 of The Economic Times (1, 2), based on the definitions in WP:CORPDEPTH and their absence in Examples of trivial coverage consider them as significant coverage. You asked about this company's product. Going back to the above comments posted by others. This company has a track record of providing service. I do not expect physical product/service from this company. Their collaborations are focused on delivering service, not on promoting each other or their own agendas. For example their collaboration with Goa Police was in order to digitize its operations and utilization of paperless document by using blockchain technology (3) and also delivered other services in their other collaborations. This company's product are its services. About its service delivery, I think it has been discussed enough here service delivery.Here is my analysis of several sources: Gedaali (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This company has a track record of providing service. No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing all the comments that have been posted in this discussion so far, evidences and clues, I agree with you. Delete. Gedaali (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [48]
          
Economic Times [49]
       This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues    
Tech in Asia [50]
       I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company    
Tech in Asia [51]
          

For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question (as with many of these crypto articles...) seems to be whether the alleged fraud has generated enough in-depth coverage to merit inclusion. Citing (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to second table I have already explained to you that you should aggregate multiple sources from the same publisher. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to expand on my view that there is no product here, because checking the crypto exchanges, you can actually buy 5irechain tokens [52] as of last December. Hopefully you didn't, as the price is falling... but meh, it's crypto. However that token would suggest there is a blockchain product. Except there isn't. Here is an announcement for what you can buy: [53]. This is an ERC-20 token which uses the Ethereum blockchain. So we still don't have any actual blockchain, and what we have is just another cryptocurrency token. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this has no byline, neither does this which indicates NEWSORGINDIA. You will notice that second one starts with ___location which is classic press-release style confirming churnalism. For this and this are from a publication that does not appear to have editorial oversight. Not to mention the writer is a freelancer journalist who writes for many different publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Looking at the references which other editors claim to pass GNG/NCORP in their analysis tables above:
    • TechInAsia Article 1 has insufficient in-depth information on the company from a source unaffiliated with the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    • TechInAsia Article 2 ais commenting on the same story as Article 1, is little more than a gossip column but more importantly, has zero in-depth information about the company, also fails CORPDEPTH
    • Article 3 and Article 4 from TechInAsia also both fail for the same reason, there is insufficient in-depth information about the company.
    • There are a couple of articles in the Economic Times. This one is a puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company and their execs after their funding announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This one also appears to rely entirely on information originating from the company or people connected with the company or investors. Fails CORPEPTH and ORGIND.
    • This from Inc42 is based entirely on an interview and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
    • This in the Business Standard is also regurgitating information provided by the company in an announcement, fails ORGIND
    • This from MoneyControl fails for the same reason
    • This in Livemint is just one of many many article on this date regurgitating the company announcement. You can see a list of other articles on Crunchbase following the announcement. Fails ORGIND
None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It is a pity the source assessment table doesn't include a column for WP:CORPDEPTH and one for WP:ORGIND, it would make it easier to show why references fail GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP : after reading the article and checking with references I’ve removed some of the unreferenced content but company seems to be value adding in blockchain references are reliable NCORP is passed. Having multiple ref yet its not indepth I’m gonna leave it to the admin. HarryD (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having multiple ref yet its not indepth - That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Understood. HarryD (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment Indian company with 1 billion valuation which means unicorn since I can’t find any guideline for unicorn startups having an article here, but definitely seems notable to me in general though the article is unnecessarily at start class or more, only facts needs to be added. For me its a KEEP Because High value startup and has quiet a lot media presence other than just paid pieces. AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Yes, I’ve just started, was learning over the months understanding the policies when to add vote etc. its my favourite area now so my vote will not be considered? I’ve voted in other discussions as well :/ AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How have you been learning over the months without hands-on experience editing Wikipedia? If you have edited using an IP previously, please disclose the same in your user page and the areas where you have previously edited. Doing so will prevent other editors from assuming you are a single-purpose account. Either way, this conversation should continue on your talk page. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The available sources do not appear to meet any notability guideline currently in use on English Wikipedia, as opposed to colloquial definitions of the word. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These references all fall short of WP:ORGCRIT which is a requirement to meet to establish notability for companies. Every one of these publications allows pay-for-play and based on the bylines some of the clearly fall in that category. Add on WP:NEWSORGINDIA and I cannot find a single in-depth source that could be considered for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crypto fluff. Nearly every keep !voter has relatively few edits. I generally agree with Sirfurboy's source table but I would discount The Economic Times entirely as it is part of The Times of India, which is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 20 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Engineering Company

Hunter Engineering Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been adequately demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the sourcing in the article is lacking, mostly industry publications. While there's no specific bar on earned media being used for WP:NORG notability these are quite narrowcast and not indicative of independent reporting. The Wash U article is an outlier -extensive, independent but narrowly focused on a COVID/PPE issue. If other reliable in-depth coverage surfaces I'd be willing to reconsider.
    @BoraVoro did you do WP:BEFORE searches? There is quite a bit of independent discussion of the company in connection with Hunter Engineering Co v Syncrude Canada Ltd but I don't see that blossomed into a broader article about the company. It would have been helpful if you had acknowledged the existence of such sources and explained why they didn't support notability.
    @Mlaviolette is a single purpose account focusing on this company and its chairman Stephen F. Brauer. A query about conflict of interest is unanswered at the talk page for nearly 5 years, but this edit admits to working for the company. Oblivy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (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.
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. Thank you fo the source analysis of which no editor has posted a rebuttal. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Empire Music

Dream Empire Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label which fails WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Could not find sources to establish, at the very least, GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  This is the official website of Dream Empire Music, which means it’s not independent. ~ Even though an official source, but could be easily influenced by the subject.   Promotional and lacks critical analysis ✘ No
  An interview or a feature which contains promotional content. Obvious paid puff. ~ While The Sun Nigeria is a reputable news (WP:NGRS) source, this specific article appears to be more of a feature or interview than hard news.   ✘ No
  Press release-ish promotional piece. ~ Vanguard is a reputable news source that is marginally reliable (WP:NGRS), and this particular piece is promotional.   ✘ No
  Press release and promotional piece. ~ Independent Newspaper Nigeria is a reliable news source (WP:NGRS), but this particular piece is promotional.   ✘ No
  The article is a press release/promotional piece. ~ The Nation is a reputable news source (WP:NGRS), but this specific article is promotional.   ✘ No
  This is the official website of Dream Empire Music, which means it’s clearly not independent. ~ Ditto   Information from here is promotional and lacks critical analysis. ✘ No
  The article appears is a PR/promotional piece.   per WP:NGRS, plus, this piece is promotional.   Ditto ✘ No
  PR/promo puff. ~ The Guardian Nigeria is a reliable news source (WP:NGRS), but this particular piece is paid promotional puff.   ✘ No
  PR/promo puff ~ Ditto ~ More or less a PR for Majeeed's second EP ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Inherent notability. Promotional clauses and unlike a notable label; few songs and artists to credit and neither have been seen on "Top stories" (of release or SIGCOV). All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this assessment. @Vanderwaalforces. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very thorough source analysis above, thank you @Vanderwaalforces BrigadierG (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (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.
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. There's no consensus here for a particular outcome. Discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 12:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auspex International

Auspex International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage relates it to being set up by people from Cambridge Analytica following the scandal Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is quite unknown for the most part. Few have heard about it probably. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it easily passes WP:SIGCOV, based on several articles about it in reliable sources. If it needs to be updated, then that can be done via ordinary editing processes. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath. Just found out on examining the sources that three had been posted across by the article's creator from Data Propria, a company also set up in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and were about that company with no mention of Auspex, so not relevant; I've now removed these. The Data economy source is written by the MD of Auspex, Mark Turnbull and Auspex is only mentioned; the article is about Cambridge Analytica. The two BBC sources are the same so I've now consolidated and the BBC and Forbes sources are about the company starting up — no follow up coverage of the company has been identified. This does not amount to significant coverage under WP:ORGDEPTH. No reporting found of the company's liquidation, so not remembered for its few years of activity, but merely as fallout from Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Correction: the only SIGCOV identified so far is the Byeline Times article[58], but more such sources are required to fulfill the multiple sources requirement. The book sources are mere mentions of its start up, again in the light of Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 11 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phocas Software

Phocas Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a single purpose editor. Looks like an advert, and the sourcing I found is mainly PR like stories. The industry recognition hardly adds to notability. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the AFR coverage is actually OK, but it's just one source – we need multiple sources to satisfy NCORP. Apart from the AFR, there are a few promising pieces (SmartCompany being a representative example) but they're all ultimately too reliant on information from company spokespeople to be properly independent. There's a bit of coverage in region-specific sources (e.g. New Zealand, Orange, and Coventry newspapers) that take the angle "company brings jobs to region", but again these reports rely too heavily on these spokespeople and don't provide independent analysis. I don't necessarily agree Gartner coverage contributes to notability; I would need to see what specific coverage is relied upon. Deloitte Fast 50 is a clearly trivial source.
It's closer than many businesses to passing NCORP, but it's not yet there. In the end, the version of this article put up for deletion was so grossly promotional and undersourced that we're not losing much by deleting it. – Teratix ₵ 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the company has been mentioned by analyst firms, for example Gartner (Magic Quadrant for BI and Analytics Platforms 2015 - company only gets a mere mention in the "Other Modern" category) and Forrester Wave Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms 2015, neither conducted an in-depth review of the company nor their product, so those reports fail the criteria for establisting notability. HighKing++ 10:41, 15 April 2024 (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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGN

KBGN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook. These do not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability) AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors. Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have just been abusive. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world. He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things. He's a journalist. He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations. To say he's un-notable, or a poor source, is a slap in the face. The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point. I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd. I second her post about WP:BEFORE. If you want to talk about "abusive", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles. You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one. As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to WP:WPRS. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to WP:BEFORE, that's what you're supposed to do. You too can add sources to articles if you find them. If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy. I'm glad I found that WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE. I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so. All you have to do is tell me. An AfD should be the last resort. If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine. I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved. As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process. I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives. I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability. And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the Idaho Statesman references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one. That's as third-party as you can get. The same with Scott Fybush's posts. One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are. -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability. The Idaho State Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.
Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people "abusive", when someone disagrees with you. It's getting old and verging into NPA territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries? You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement. I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other AfDs. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per work done by Milonica. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not independent of the subject. The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability. It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically "The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower. Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts. The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing. That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not brief mentions, directories, or non-independent sourcing. I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an {{R to list entry}} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less-policy-based over time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman? I found four refs easily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG I'm not sure as GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" AusLondonder (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination. I don't see more support for Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough. I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is. That one should end this tirade. There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history. This includes the United States Senate for pete sake. I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one. Scott Fybush is a reliable source. He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history. He's a journalist. There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage. This should have been resolved by now. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
  • Keep: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers. Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept. Flip Format (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it.Gedaali (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First of up, per WP:BEFORE, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).
○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources. They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable. So yea, check WP:BEFORE. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:15, 14 April 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Sun Life Financial#India. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India Most of the article here is superlative and promotional filler, while the section in Sun Life about it is more focused and neutral. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have made substantial improvements and added better sources and information. Aditya Birla Sun Life is the second-biggest insurance company in the country and was the first to introduce the ULIP plan. It won many awards and gets talked about in the media a lot. I have also added some controversies for neutrality. Its notable and meets NCORP.ChaiSK (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any improvements in this article at all; it remains full of pointless filler about a merger that never happened or came close to closing (and doesn't speak anything about how Sun Life itself thought about the idea), and there remains only one blue link in the entire body of the article below the lede, leaving the reader completely lost and confused about what on earth is being talked about here (what is ULIP?), a complete dismissal of their Internet presence (who goes to a branch to buy insurance? Branch count is nigh pointless these days), and the usual financial figures that are already out of date and I can easily ascertain will not be updated further. And it also remains an orphan article with no incoming links. Nate • (chatter) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not intended for cleanup. If the financial figures are outdated or the article lacks Wikilinks, or if the article is orphaned because it is not linked to any other Wikipedia page, all these issues can be easily addressed through discussion on the article's talk page or by using various templates to highlight these issues. We can either resolve these issues ourselves or leave them to others. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Regarding financials, there are numerous articles available on the internet about financials, and they can be easily updated or expanded upon. As you mentioned, "What is ULIP," ULIP stands for Unit-Linked Insurance Plan, which is an insurance product that offers both insurance and investment benefits, and it is already Wikilinked. Anyone can click on this blue link to learn more about it. These issues can be resolved quite easily, and they should not be grounds for merging the article with another Wikipedia article.ChaiSK (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason is promotion and incorrect talk. Clear. GQO (talk) 6:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
GQO , this comment makes no sense. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:HEY. It is among the top insurance companies listed in the NIFTY 50 index. Being part of NIFTY 50 itself is more than enough to justify notability.--Abualsarmad (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect validation. The company is not included in any Indian stock exchange (BSE or NSE); being part of the NIFTY 50 is highly unlikely. This vote could be a last-minute effort to rescue this article from deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Abualsarmad & WP:HEY, the sources added to the article demonstrate notability. Nitish shetty (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A vote in quick succession, attempting to defend/justify the previous 'keep' vote which came with an improper validation; without conducting own independent research to confirm that the company is genuinely not listed on any Indian stock exchange (failing WP:LISTED) and therefore not included in the NIFTY 50. Also, the recent revisions made by the article's creator are merely superficial changes and do not meet the standards outlined in WP:HEY. TCBT1CSI (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't inspire confidence in the article's notability when keep advocates just... make things up? The company is not in the NIFTY 50, as can very easily be checked. Not sure what Abualsarmad was thinking here? – Teratix ₵ 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India seems like the sensible option as WP:ATD, none of the references in the article meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sun Life Financial#India. The closer needs to know whether it is merge or redirect. I think the first two paragraphs of the history could be merged with the target without unbalancing the target and without getting too specific. This is a merge then. The merge edsum in page history will also act as a flag to available page history should the target be expanded in the future. It is not notable for an article of its own as we do not have sufficient sources or evidence of notability under NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Distillers

Aspen Distillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP as only having local coverage from Aspen news sources and PR reprints. ~ A412 talk! 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • note :.It must be rewritten again and searched for secondary sources،GQO (talk) 7:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the article cites the company's website several times, independent sources are lacking, and a reliable source like the Wall Street Journal doesn't mention the company at all.Gedaali (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daraja Press

Daraja Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources about the publisher. Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article now? Please advise if more sources are needed. Grantennis (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three independent sources about the publisher: AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com.

Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/.

Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64q7S7IB-A.

Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22Daraja+Press%22

Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search?query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check now Grantennis (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to convert the article into "List of books published by Daraja Press", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria. The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded. What benefit to you think having a separate article has? IgelRM (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this IgelRM. This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world. At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives. Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia? Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the "sources" are going to be quite different. Do you see where I'm coming from? Eager to know your thoughts. Grantennis (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important. IgelRM (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question - "What benefit to you think having a separate article has?". The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented. Would it be helpful to add sources to that point? Like:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes . These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves. They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes. Grantennis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources. A "List of books published by Daraja Press" might be better as a category. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of sources now Grantennis (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grantennis, high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions. It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites. Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage? Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023)
   "With permission from Daraja Press"   ✘ No
Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022)
       Founder is quoted ✘ No
Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021)
 ~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member     ~ Partial
CL (October 28, 2020)
   ✘ No
Repeat of #1
 ? Unknown
AELAQ
   Subject-provided copy ✘ No
Fallon, Helen (2019)
       Mention ✘ No
Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018)
     Mention ✘ No
Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020)
     WP:COUNTERPUNCH   Mention ✘ No
Amazon.com
   ✘ No
Google Scholar
   ✘ No
RPA (5 September 2020)
     Member in list ✘ No
AELAQ (14 February 2012)
     Member in list ✘ No
RBC
     Member in list ✘ No
LPG
   Member in list ✘ No
MRO
   Self-published ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Thread

AfDs for this article:
Daily Thread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surprisingly poor sourced, not notable company. WP THREE? Rodgers V (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The current sources are the company's own about page, a local news site and a press release. I've looked and have not found anything better. Does not meet and is unlikely to meet WP:CORP. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like I stated, Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 12 April 2024 (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.
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. Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ventana Wilderness Alliance

Ventana Wilderness Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run of the mill local "cause" organization with little coverage beyond local area. Coverage in broader area sources are trivial, such as "Sykes had become an “attractive nuisance,” said Mike Splain, executive director of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance."

An article on company/organization needs significant, independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources and at least one of those needs to be a regional or national source. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: This article by a California-wide magazine might count as regional significant coverage: [60], but it's an obscure publication. There's lots of information about this group out there, but as nom pointed out it's almost all local, affiliated with the VWA, and/or routine nonprofit listings. The article is well-written and informative, so it would be a shame to delete it, but without better sourcing that might be the only answer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed:, This is an organization, so NCORP is the stanard to be met. "obscure publication" would likely not pass WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2024 (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.
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 and no indication of further input Star Mississippi 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTV Ltd.

KTV Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Largely unencyclopedic content including channel listings, "competitors" and the cost per month. PROD removed on the basis of sources on the Spanish Wikipedia that appear to be solely about the hacking of various Falkland Islands websites nearly 10 years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer opinions based in source analysis and policy, not your opinion of the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about non-notable organization, created by obvious paid editor. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to earlier AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC). Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 3 April 2024 (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.
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 Draftify‎ to allow time for improvement Star Mississippi 01:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Optima Production

Trinity Optima Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:CORP. I tried to encourage user to fix that multiple times before moving out of draft space, but was ignored multiple times. Edit history has been broken so much I dont think a merge is even possible anymore due to copy+paste moves and redirects even if the result was keep. Q T C 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Draftify and salt While I could find plenty of results for them, they were all are either passing mentions of working with a musician, [61] [62] or primarily based on press releases or interviews. [63] [64] [65] [66] none of which would help to meet WP:NCORP. The edit history just seems to be a mess and while I wouldn't be opposed to draftification, I'm not sure how much of an option that is when it's been created despite prior draftification and no changes to improve it. Shaws username . talk . 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed from deleting, it doesn't feel right to advocate deletion when I don't speak the language and can't do the same level of WP:BEFORE. However I'm still sceptical that it could meet WP:NCORP, most of the sources (including those below) contain significant sections of quotes from the CEO, when WP:SIRS says it should be completely independent, and some have more about OTT is than the company. Given that it's been draftified three times and probably been copy and pasted moved to mainspace each time, salting would seem to be necessary to prevent that again. Shaws username . talk . 05:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft: This recording company has received significant coverage from major Indonesian news outlets such as detik.com, Republika, Kontan, Bisnis Indonesia, Investor Daily, and many more... It's not difficult to find Indonesia sources for this company. IMO it should pass WP:CORP requirements, However, given the current condition of the article, it might be more suitable to move it to draft rather than keep it on as article in WP. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Indonesian-language source material found by Ckfasdf indicates a GNG pass, and articles on noteworthy topics should be improved rather than removed. I don't have much confidence that the draftified article would ever return to mainspace, and the encyclopedia is less complete with this subject uncovered. Chubbles (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject meets GNG, AfD is not cleanup, and I don't see inaccurate nor promotional prose that needs to be removed. Therefore I don't see the point in moving to draft. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (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.
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. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association

Western Provident Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created and continues to be edited by COI editor who removed PROD tag on the basis that "We are in the process of editing this page, but we need the copy to be authorised, which can not be done in the timescale that you have provided, it will be carried out soon,". The organisation lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", as a result failing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, any coverage here lacks WP:DEPTH.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although this company has not received lengthy coverage, tThey are well documented to have been a pioneer in private health funding in the UK (one of just three players throughout the 1980s and early to mid 1990's). Even if this were to be seen as failing SIGCOV, I think it should be kept on WP:IAR grounds as a company worth documenting due to its early role in shifting cost burdens to the private sector.
    @Eastmain added some cites. I have added several more. The article was in a bit of a sorry state, but I tried to add some context about their role in the move to private and top-up insurance. I also did some section reformatting to make the article less scatterbrained although there's an entire section on WPA Healthcare Practice that is unsourced and I don't have a good way of fixing that right now. Oblivy (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the organisation is lacking "lengthy coverage", not enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the correct policy to apply would be WP:IAR which says that if a policy interferes with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia it should be ignored. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another two links (one is just to support existence of WPA Protocol as the link is dead and not archived), and improved a link to an offline source by linking to the PDF. Previously I added an article from the Times which is significant coverage of the company.
I also had a look at the links added by @Eastmain two of which are offline. There's actually quite a lot of sourcing for the article although the offline links make it hard to know how lengthy the treatment is. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, IAR isn't a policy that says "Let's keep articles that fail our notability criteria", it says don't let a rule prevent you from improving an article. There's no rule at play here preventing anybody from improving the article or for showing references that shows notability. HighKing++ 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Eastmain and I have been improving the article and with the addition of the Times article I don't think there's a basis to say this fails WP:NCORP. I've modified my vote comment accordingly. As for WP:IAR it's a foundational policy, and appears at the top of every notability PAG. It absolutely says that where the application of those policies and guidelines would interfere with the project they should be ignored.Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be "improving" the article, but the first test is whether the topic is notable. You mention you've added the Times article but that article appears to be entirely based on a company announcement just like the other articles carrying the same corporate story such as "Insurance to Secure New Cancer Drugs" by Rececca Smith which appeared in the Evening Standard on the same date and also the article "INSURANCE THAT OFFERS LIFE-SAVING CANCER COVER" by Liz Philips in the Daily Mail, also on the same date (both articles available in WP Library). Also just to say, IAR along with all the other policies and guidelines are generally transcluded into various pages, not disputing that, but that doesn't give it any special hierachial weighting or put it above other policies. Feel free to correct me if I've misread your position, I accept IAR encourages editors to go ahead and improve articles and to do so even if that means breaking some rules - but are you saying that establishing notability doesn't matter so long as an article is being improved, and because AfD "interferes" with article improvement by proposing to delete an article, the AfD process is trumped by IAR and you can keep any old topic regardless of whether they meet notability guidelines or not? If so, that's a ridiculous proposition. HighKing++ 18:10, 12 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchpad LA

Launchpad LA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, appears to fail WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source Analysis Conclusion
#1 not significant ("Suster also founded LaunchPad LA", end coverage). ✗
#2 dead link, not on the wayback machine. ✗
#3 note that this is a blog hosted by the NYT, not the NYT proper. Not reliable. ✗
#4 blog on medium dot com. Not reliable. ✗
#5 forbes contributor, not reliable. ✗
#6 own website, not independent. ✗
#7 A real source! But a local one. ~
#8 the noticeboard doesn't have a clear consensus on pando as a source. Dubious. ~
#9 techcrunch "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability". ✗
#10 another forbes contributor. ✗
#11 not significant ("went on [...] to become a partner at a tech accelerator, Launchpad LA", end coverage). ✗
#12 not independent ("customer stories" section) ✗
#13 another real but local source. ~
#14 plausibly real, local. ~
#15 blog and not independent. ✗
#16 business insider syndicated content "should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." this is syndicated from a medium blog. not reliable. ✗
#17 local and not significant ("I applied to LaunchpadLA"). ✗
#18 business insider is dubiously reliable, and it's a passing mention anyway ("Incubated at the SoCal tech accelerator Launchpad LA") ✗
#19 Passing mention ("which was part of incubator Launchpad LA") in a dubiously reliable source. ✗
#20 Local source again, focused on the company they funded. ✗
#21 Not actually mentioned in this source. ✗
#22 passing mention ("came out of the accelerator program LaunchpadLA"). ✗
#23 Not significant, reliable, or independent (podcast by someone whose company was funded) ✗
Overall: some local coverage. One source of uncertain reliability. Nothing else that contributes to notability. Doesn't qualify for WP:NCORP.— Moriwen (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MoriwenI am not sure why you considered local sources 7, 13 and 14 not reliable. LA Business Journal is a respectable publication. It's like saying LA Times or NY Times are not reliable. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree they're reliable sources! But per WP:AUD, coverage in reliable local sources doesn't establish notability.— Moriwen (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disqualifying a local source in Los Angeles or New York is different from applying the same in Idaho Falls or Merrillville. We appear to have two reliable sources here (7 and 13 are the same publisher). ~Kvng (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 7 is ok, but is one source about Los Angeles startup funding significant coverage? Techzulu doesn't appear like mainstream newspaper and is primarily a list of "graduates". Like I said in my PROD, we already have articles on Mark Suster and Adam Lilling.
IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per the evaluation above sources 7, 13 and 14 are reliable sources. LA Business Journal is a notable publication. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 3 April 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen

DOVO Solingen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 7 April 2024 (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.

Companies proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1218121533"