Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortude

< Wikipedia:Articles for 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortude

edit

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

Fortude (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)

This company doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article per WP:NCORP; sources I could find seem to fail WP:ORGCRIT (I'll add a breakdown below).

I think the article should be deleted or redirected to Brandix. But the (declared paid) article creator reverted an earlier change to a redirect, and reverted my recent attempt at a move to draftspace, so I'm coming here to reach a consensus.

Some additional context: The paid creator originally started the article as a draft in AFC. Once it was rejected twice at AFC,[1] they copy and pasted the article directly into mainspace,[2] and then possibly blanked the original rejected draft.[3] I attempted to explain that they should go through AFC on their talkpage when I moved it to draftspace, but they simply reverted the move with no explanation, and then expanded the article with more press releases. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Below are my breakdown of the sources currently in the article (excluding sources from Fortude or Brandix). Outside of these sources, the ones I could find (even using the company's previous name) mainly seemed to be press releases or routine coverage.
Assessment of sources from current article
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
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No byline, same as above No byline, same as above No No discussion/analysis; seems like press release/routine coverage Yes
No Paid press release from GlobeNewswire No Paid press release No Paid press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
Yes Independent author, but about half of the article is quotes from employees May not have much editorial oversight; author is one of 2 editors of the website No No in-depth coverage/analysis of Fortude Yes
No Press release from GlobeNewswire No Press release No Press release No Press release
No byline; author could be anyone, but it reads like a company press release No byline; author could be anyone and there may not be much editorial oversight No Coverage of name change with no discussion/analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, the giver of the grant to Fortude that is mentioned in the article Yes No 1 sentence about Fortude Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes Lots of info, but seems like routine coverage of facts without analysis Yes
No Published by Microsoft, same as above Yes No 1 passing mention of Fortude (in list of thank yous to Microsoft's "customers and partners") Yes
No author byline, meaning author could be anyone; reads like press release/churnalism Seems to have an editorial team, but no author byline makes it questionable No Routine coverage, no analysis/discussion about Fortude Yes
No byline; author could be anyone No byline, and I cannot find listed the editorial team or oversight on the website Yes Yes
No byline; author could be anyone, and it reads like a press release; line "as we collectively strive" sounds like it was copied from something sent to them Not sure, because of absence of byline Seems like routine coverage, but there does seem to be some extra discussion/cultural context given Yes
No byline; author could be anyone Not sure, because of absence of byline No Seems like press release/routine coverage of award; no analysis of the company Yes
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More or less agree with nom, also if the page creator remains uncommunicative they should probably be blocked until they learn how to talk to people (preferably without using AI like they're doing for content and, more obviously, their user page). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No truly independent sources. If you were to remove the obvious primary sources and the press releases (which includes the two Daily Mirror cites - I found 3-4 other identical articles so I have no doubt that they were press releases) there is nothing near NCORP. I admit that I do my searches in Google from the US so it is possible that there are other sources that do not turn up for me. I will cycle back to check. Lamona (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fortude&oldid=1297784518"