- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Zando (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)
WP:PROMO page lacks in-depth sourcing. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT. Novemberjazz 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New York. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Am I missing something? I’ve checked the sources and they’re reliable sources. If they’re promotional (which I doubt), move it to draftspace. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I see two sources that appear to pass WP:ORGCRIT, though I wasn't able to access the Publisher's Weekly sources.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.
|
|
The source discusses the subject directly.
|
✘ No | |
| Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.
|
value not understood |
|
✘ No | |
| The Atlantic is partnered with Zando.
|
|
The article discusses the subject directly.
|
✘ No | |
| Interviews of executives are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.
|
Forbes staff.
|
The article discusses the subject directly.
|
✘ No | |
| Provides independent secondary analysis.
|
|
Discusses the subject directly.
|
✔ Yes | |
| Provides independent secondary analysis.
|
|
Discusses the subject directly.
|
✔ Yes | |
| Provides independent secondary analysis.
|
|
Trivial mention only.
|
✘ 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}}. | ||||
- Weak keep source analysis above shows two good sources and a bunch of minor ones in RS. I'd say it's at GNG. The large number of minor sources is what pushes it over the GNG hump. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2023 (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.