Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

Contractor ratings

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

Although this sounds plausible it is hard for us who are not in business to tell whether it is really true Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. I am seeing a lot of journals and books using the term ""Contractor rating system" and "contractor prequalification". An article would be possible on either of these based on the sources. Just look at these source searches with hundreds of hits in google scholar, the internet archive, and google books: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. This isn't my area so I can't comment on whether our presentation of the topic is accurate or not. I will say that the term "contractor prequalification" is by far the more common term in publications in search results, and it may be better to title this article "contractor prequalification". This is honestly a topic needing attention from an expert because I wouldn't even know where to begin in assimilating the literature into a big picture topic. Most of the sources are focused on specific contexts or applications so it is difficult find an overview of the topic in sifting through sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield Hog Production Division

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

While Smithfield Foods is undeniably notable but its production unit may not meet the criteria of independent significance and this alone may not establish notability. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, China, Germany, United States of America, California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I offer no opinion or comment on the article itself at this time (beyond noting there has been a UPE tag on it since 2021), I did want to note that the nominator is presumably referring to Smithfield Foods (rather than the Smithfield disambiguation page) should anyone propose anything in that direction. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thanks for update.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 23:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a hog, so to speak. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hart, John Fraser (2003). The Changing Scale of American Agriculture. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press. pp. 201–209. ISBN 0-8139-2229-1. Retrieved 2025-09-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In 1989 Dennis Harms and Tad Gordon formed Premium Standard Farms (PSF) and started to develop one of the nation's largest hog farms in Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties in north-central Missouri. They were a good team. Harms had worked in the feed business and knew how to raise hogs on a large scale. Gordon had been a securities trader on Wall Street and knew how to raise money on a large scale. Initially Harms and Gordon had hoped to develop a 1,000-sow farrowing farm west of Ames, Iowa. They planned to contract with local farmers to finish their hogs, but local opposition was so strong that they were not able to obtain the permits they needed, so they dropped the lowa project and moved across the state line into northern Missouri, where they were welcomed. Their northernmost hog farm is so close to Iowa that you can smell it there. ... Missouri had a family farm law prohibiting corporate farms, but the state welcomed PSF by exempting Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties. The company received no other special treatment, no government financing, no subsidies, no waived fees, no streamlined approvals. The only public money it has required was spent on roads during the hectic construction phase in the early 1990s. Harms, Gordon, and other senior executives made their homes in the area, and the company made a special effort to be a good neighbor and a good citizen."
2. Smith, Jonathan Vaughan (November 1999). "Premium Standard Farms and the Transformation of Livestock Geography in Northern Missouri". Southeastern Geographer. Vol. 39, no. 2. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 161–171. doi:10.1353/sgo.1999.0009.
  The article notes: "The purpose of this article is to document how issues of remote corporate ownership, corporate welfarism, obtuseness to small-town and family farm-values, and social and environmental degradation all were handled initially in a creative and geographically perceptive manner by one company, Premium Standard Farms (PSF). The economic, social, and environmental consequences that followed ultimately led to a corporate takeover by Continental Grain and a trend back toward the conventional corporate imagery that PSF had initially eschewed."
3. Joplin, Benjamin A. (1997). "Can Townships Really Smell: Coping with the Malodorous Problems of Hog Farms in Rural Missouri: Premium Standard Farms, Inc. v. Lincoln Township of Putnam County". Missouri Environmental Law & Policy Review. Vol. 5, no. 2. University of Missouri School of Law. Archived from the original on 2024-07-31. Retrieved 2025-09-01.
  The article notes: "In Northwestern Missouri, the town of Princeton embraced the boost Premium Standard Farms (PSF) gave the local economy. Less than 150 miles to the east, the Lincoln Township of Putnam County, Missouri (Lincoln) has put up a fierce battle to PSF' s efforts to remain in the area. Lincoln's battle attracted so much national attention that country singer Willie Nelson brought the annual "Farm Aid" concert to the community in 1995. Since then, PSF has challenged in court the method by which Lincoln sought to restrict PSF' s growth in the township."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Premium Standard Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously was at Premium Standard Farms before being moved first to Murphy-Brown of Missouri, LLC and then being moved to the current title Smithfield Hog Production Division. I did a brief search for sources and found the above three sources. There are likely even more sources. There is enough information in these sources to show that the predecessor company Premium Standard Farms is notable. Backed by reliable sources, the Wikipedia article says Premium Standard Farms was the second-largest pork producer and the sixth-largest processor in the United States until Smithfield Foods acquired it in 2007. This strongly establishes the predecessor company's notability. There is enough coverage about the predecessor company's history between its founding in 1988 and the merger in 2013 to support a standalone article and to make it undue weight to merge it into Smithfield Foods. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invest Lithuania

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

Promotional COI mess. Unable to find enough sources for standalone article. Fails WP:SIGCOV 8bit12man (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Mostly unsourced and reads like an advertisement for a newspaper. ~Rafael (He, him) • TALK • GUESTBOOK • PROJECTS 02:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. There are sources (although not a lot); it's a government department and it's worth describing it. However, it is indeed written as an advertisement and we should just trim such content. --Mindaur (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Product software implementation method

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

In 2010 there was a request on the talk page for someone to cleanup the article but it seems no one is interested enough to add any sources. I would not be surprised if there is another article covering the subject but if so I don’t know what it is Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a possible COPYVIO, can someone do a check for that? I'm not sure if I have the relevant tools or how to do it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTuition

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE fails to turn up anything in-depth. It gets some passing mentions in books as a useful resource, but nothing in-depth. The Financial Times source does not verify anything in the article and does not mention this company [7] and the other sources in the article are promotional/primary. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Education, and Latvia. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced thermal recycling system

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

This is a proprietary technology that lacks information in reliable, independent sources. Without those independent sources I don't believe this article can meet the sourcing requirements to meet verifiability and notability guidelines.

There does not seem to be much difference between this trademarked system and a typical waste-to-energy + materials incineration process. I do not believe a redirect is appropriate in this case as the term is too generic and searching for "advanced thermal recycling" brings up a variety of recycling methods. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In English sources there isn't much on this. However, if one googles by its German name (fortschrittliches thermisches recycling) more materials start cropping up. I am not particularly adept at sifting through German language materials, and evaluating coverage here requires that skill. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HOV Services

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

Fails NCORP, promotional. No reliable independent coverage - listings, puffery portfolio texts, nothing more. Jazzbanditto (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Tamil Nadu, and Texas. jolielover♥talk 11:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only coverage is routine reporting from NEWSORGINDIA, which is not independent. Hence, the subject entirely fails to meet WP:ORG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstsource

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

Primary sources and no NCORP-eligible sources. Promotion and more promotion Jazzbanditto (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Maharashtra. jolielover♥talk 11:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another WP:LISTED pass thanks to analyst coverage in sources such as [8] [9] [10]. Yuvaank (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually !vote to delete such lists, but per Yuvaank's comment and sources this is a Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

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

It has been suggested that legislation is automatically considered notable under WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc.

WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources"
WP:WPNOTRS says "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

The excessive use of primary sources in this article strays into original research. (the primary legislation it was made under, other statutory instruments, and a document written by the administering government department.)

I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article.

While I have found three secondary sources which mention the regulations, none of them explain the details contained within it.

I stress the phrasing of

WP:WHYN states that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic"

I don't think this threshold as stated in WP:WHYN is met (as stated immediately above this sentence).

I don't think this article justifies a merge. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

I find the nomination unconvincing and WP:SOFIXIT carrying rather more weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate target, but why didn't you just do a proposed merger? Bearian (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge is the right option because the content is esoteric enough to justify a straight deletion. I think straight deletion would be better. There have been times where I've suggested a merge even when I personally preferred deletion because I'm aware of views like yours, which ended up concluding a merge would be wrong. See Talk:Parish council (England)#Merge proposal. Landpin (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. I'm not convinced that a merger is not a good option here. Bearian (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a regulatory reform order. Possibly you are mixing this up with Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 the afd for which has been linked above.

they have nothing substantive linking them beyond their their Wikipedia categorisation and the class of legislation they belong to and this is just a normal statutory instrument. A regulatory reform order is a specific subset of statutory instruments. Landpin (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources will likely be in legal textbooks. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources like these could be used to improve the article: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Legal journals are likely to have more.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a pretty significant aspect of starting up a limited company, and anyone who is a company director will be bemused at the idea that this isn't notable or even esoteric. There is a whole service sector devoted to designing Model Articles to fit the legislation. It's an article that needs improvement, context and better sourcing.

ChrysGalley (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see scholarly papers addressing this set of regulations alongside other UK corp governance topics: [17], [18], [19]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject. The previous AfD discussion was closed with "no consensus" but brought up concerns of the quality of reliable sourcing used in the article. At the time of writing, the majority of the cited sources are routine business announcements, such as financing developments (ref 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24), acquisitions (ref 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21), and business partnerships (ref 15, 16, 25, 26), that fail WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding the other, more substantial cited sources: Gheus noted in the discussion that ref 1 contains a disclosure for a paid article; the bulk of ref 2 is an interview with the CEO; and much of the text of ref 4 is based on the outlet's interview with the co-founders (e.g., "according to the business partners"). Bridget (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Transportation, and United Arab Emirates. Bridget (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @Goodboyjj: sources in the first AfD, looks enough for WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were sources identified in the first AFD that passed WP:NCORP. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone creates a source analysis table as directed at WP:SIRS and demonstrates through detailed analysis that WP:ORGCRIT isn't met by analyzing both those sources and the ones present in the article in detail.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, there are some immediately apparent concerns with those sources. Goodboyjj, the article creator, presented these links with the claim that they "establish notability", and that claim was not really analyzed or challenged during the AfD. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bridget
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes Middle East		WP:TRADES applies, as a business magazine associated with the Forbes brand	Forbes 30 Under 30 list entry honoring the founders and providing a brief business history	✘ No
The National News	WP:INTERVIEW applies; as mentioned in the AfD rationale above and that of the previous AfD, the article content (not including the Q&A at the end of the article) heavily draws from the outlet's interview with the co-founders. Uses phrases such as "according to the business partners".	but note that this is a state-owned newspaper and, per Financial Times, "is seen as a mouthpiece for Abu Dhabi's worldview."		✘ No
Middle East Business		WP:TRADES applies	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement); the lead states: "MySyara today announced plans to expand its operations and launch a new suite of services, aiming to provide car owners with more convenient and affordable ways to manage their vehicle maintenance and repair services." (original text in Arabic)	✘ No
Experience Abu Dhabi		travel blog which states in its website description: "Discover top Abu Dhabi attractions, events, dining, and travel guides."	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business development (based on company announcement): "MySyara’s full range on-demand services will be made available to customers in Abu Dhabi"	✘ No
Jawlah			WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments; reports that "Car maintenance app MySyara secures $400,000 investment" (original text in Arabic)	✘ No
Zawya	marked as press release from company	WP:TRADES applies; "ZAWYA by LSEG is a leading and trusted source of regional business and financial news and intelligence for millions of professionals across the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa."	WP:CORPTRIV applies, routine coverage of business developments: "MySyara launches the first cloud garage network in the UAE in partnership with Mobil UAE"	✘ 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}}.

Bridget (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridget This is a good start. I suggest continuing with the many other materials currently cited in the article. I'll hold off responding until you are finished. Ping me when your source analysis is complete. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: In this AfD, 32 sources have been shown to not contribute to a GNG pass. What other (SIRS) sources would you base your keep vote on, given we've looked at the ones you're citing from the previous AfD? Bridget (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget you have not provided specific reasoning for 32 sources in a meaningful way; only the five listed in the table. If you wish to cite WP:CORPDEPTH as a rationale you actually need to do a SIRS analysis for every source in the table. Listing a bunch of sources in your nomination and then vaguely nodding towards CORPDEPTH without actually doing a proper SIRS analysis isn't going to cut it. It doesn't sufficiently explain your thinking. If you want to claim CORPDEPTH put it in the table and give us a real analysis of why it doesn't meet SIRS. There's a reason why we have the table at that guideline. Use it to your advantage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with the analysis of nom that this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:CORPTRIV cannot be used to meet WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]