- 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. It appears that the article passes WP:NCORP and there is a rough consensus for keeping this article at this time. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GoBolt (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)
Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. ~ A412 talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one keep comment seems mildly contradictory with itself. As of now there clearly is not a consensus for any specific course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep. When you weed out the bad sourcing and announcements, there are still at least two good ones, Collier's (Canada) and The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: References 17 and 18 seem to be reliable, independent, and non-churnalism. All the promotional and non-independent sources need to go, however; far too many laundered press releases and routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete none of the sources meet NCORP requirement. as this is a company page, GNG cannot be applied here. 17 and 18 sources are only about financing, event-based and no deep enough to provide reliable coverage. --71.251.8.132 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.