Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeka

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!} 05:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeka

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Adeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is written very specifically, so much so that I suspect a COI. I’m not voting one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 30 July 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, sourcing in the article all relies on announcement and none contain in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 31 July 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.