Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical Position

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!} 23:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Position

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

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

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners~~. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Internet, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the references are press-releases and unimportant awards ("top 100 places-to-work in the Portland area in 2016"). But [1], while not enough on its own, suggests there might be coverage. I agree with the nom that it is unclear whether any prose would be left in the article after cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Charlotte Observer story is coverage of a new ___location opening that would be excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question What or where is the "allegation" re: a relation to Roth? -- GreenC 03:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 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!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the coverage is excluded for notability under WP:ORGTRIV. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 29 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.