Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Companies. 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|Companies|~~~~}} 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 Companies. 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 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

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

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] Black-listed: ^[13] ^[14]. Press release: ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19]. Wordpress: ^[20]. Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): ^[21] ^[22].

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: ^[23] ^[24] ^[25] ^[26]. Written with similar promotional content: ^[27] ^[28].

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article trimmed to remove obvious promotional sentences. I agree with the nominator when he says that the article was advertisement. I also added back the criticism section removed by an IP 4 years ago and expanded on it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Styyx in the DRV. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: The page is really good and meets the required Wikipedia policy for a standard page Francisca po (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (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.

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 03:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sehat.com.pk

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP as it lacks reliable sources that provide independent and significant coverage. Notices of website launch and passing mentions are far from the level of coverage expected under WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator is/was an employee of the parent company according to their user page declaration. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a promo page.EleOk6e3ih (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trio AB

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

Tagged since 2014 for failing WP:CORP and not citing any sources. A search did not bring up any significant coverage – in fact, I couldn't find anything about the company, and even the website link in the article gives an error. The Note in the article states that it was acquired by Teligent, which is a redlink but might refer to Teligent Telecom. In any case, this article here should be deleted. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 30 June 2021 (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.

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 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2N Telekomunikace

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

This is almost entirely a commercial web page. Almost all the references arefrom their own site. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree the article reads like a publicity statement, suitable for their own website but not Wikipedia. Most of it is incidentally sourced to their own web site(s), and I could only identify these two sources as potentially acceptable: Businesswire on acquisition Czech site on acquisition – interestingly, the article does not mention the main point of these news, that the company changed ownership in 2017. 2N is also mentioned in passing here, but I don't think that counts as significant coverage. With the article in a bad shape and the company imo failing WP:CORP, I vote delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LordPeterII. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:18, 25 June 2021 (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.

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 02:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Raheja Group (conglomerate)

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

Unambiguous advertisement of the group companies. Re-creation by the same user without fixing the issues. Creator is also blocked previously. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Speedy delete and block the creator for promotion on Wikipedia. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Delete per WP:NCOMPANY. Hydrogenation (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hydrogenation, Your comment is confusing, Kindly make the clear statement like you want to "Delete", "Keep" or "Comment". GermanKity (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

whoops Hydrogenation (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G11. Article is completely unsourced and most likely created for promotion.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, promotional, likely WP:G5 candidate (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel). Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2021 (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.

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. significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Event Horizons BBS

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

There's no question this BBS existed, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are a few small references to it based on its porn category but there's hardly any coverage of it.

See also concurrent AFDs for Jim Maxey, Oregon State Media, Inc. tedder (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some passing mentions in blogs but not much in the way of WP:RS. The only thing close would be Wired [1] but even this is just a few sentences about profitability and porn. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decent amount of coverage in various sources.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your big improvements. Can you tell me if there is some depth of coverage in any of the sources? I think all of the books are basically a mention, Wired is two paragraphs. The Oregonian is 500 words and should count for significant coverage, any others? tedder (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In addition to the WIRED and Oregonian articles, the article in Boardwatch is over 1,600 words and covers the 3D astronomy simulator they developed, in addition to the other aspects of the BBS. The entry in The Joy of Cybersex is a couple paragraphs. Some of the books were just a paragraph or a blurb, but added details.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. Thanks Surv1v4l1st, nice work! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2021 (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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KineticGlue

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

A run-of-the-mill enterprise software vendor that fails NCORP. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to acquisition reports, interviews and brief mentions in listicles. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Mostly interview sorts of coverage with no independent perspective of a journalist on the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (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.

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. Merge is off the table anyways due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merkle Inc.. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HelloWorld Inc

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

Non-notable company Dexxtrall (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Suggest merging it with the Merkle Inc. article as it is the same company. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not worth merging it. Also there isn't anything on either page that says they are the same? FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the press release announcing the merger which took place in January 2018. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you! Still think it is not worth merging. Keeping my vote as is. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2021 (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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Corporation

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 5 July 2021 (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.

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 merge to Paducah & Louisville Railway (or another suitable target if something else is better). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P&L Transportation

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

It doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH Asketbouncer (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paducah & Louisville Railway, where parent company & other components are already mentioned, especially since name and history of corporate structure is pertinent to that article. Djflem (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To either P&L or CSX where what little sourceable information on this could be included.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 5 July 2021 (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.

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. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valitor

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

Delete. Routine not deep enough media coverage. Actually, it doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media as a WP:BEFORE would have shown [2][3][4][5][6][7] Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alvaldi's comment. --Bensin (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there is significant coverage in Icelandic media.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alvaldi proved there are reliable sources in the Icelandic media. The Wikileaks source should be removed though. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2021 (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.

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 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heimdal™ Security

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent despite the claim that they are present in 6 countries. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure promo piece on a non-notable ROTM business. (Also likely UPE/COI, judging by the creating editor's user name and a quick look at the company website.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see the previous instance which was rejected at AfC and then deleted, but the comments left by reviewer Rich Smith on the article creator's Talkpage [8] look equally applicable to this newly-created instance. The article text does no more than describe the staffing and commercial history of a company going about its business, with no claim to encyclopaedic notability, and supported by references which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more routine coverage of opening of offices, etc., but also past coverage of a problem in their software (BBC News: "Security flaw put RBS customers at risk of cyber-attack"). Were the article to survive, information about that incident should be added to the text and references. However I don't see that as evidence of attained notability for the firm. Nor is there an article on the acquiring firm Marlin Equity Partners which could serve as a merge/redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per AllyD's comment. I rejected the same or very similar article at AfC, and it looks like they somehow obtained Autoconfirmed early (as they have not made 10 edits) and made a new one in mainspace. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:04, 23 June 2021 (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.

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 14:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Team Maturity Model (VTMM)

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

Not notable business process. Was published as a doctoral thesis by Dr. Ralf Friedrich, but has received very few citations. It is being commercialized by a very small company (micro company according to this) which would be A7able, but the article is on the process. This does not meet GNG.

Noting this was created with a tag this was accepted at AfC, yet I don't quite see where that happened if at all (The Draft:Virtual Team Maturity Model appears unreviewed, and this would see to be a copy paste move by the creator with the AfC acceptance tag). Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:G11. JBchrch talk 14:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Eostrix - The tag that you are commenting on is wrong. It means that there is an AFC submission template in a page that is in article space. This can happen, as the display says, if the draft was accepted, but the AFC script did not complete. As you noted, this more often means that there was either a copy-paste move or an actual Move. The draft may even have been declined in AFC. The article should be reviewed, and usually cannot be moved to draft space because there is already a draft. The article often needs to be taken to AFD, as this one was. The tag is wrong. A few reviewers have been complaining about the wording of the tag for years, and no one seems to care about the incorrect tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable business process model. As noted by nominator, developed as a Ph.D. thesis that has not been cited much since. Reads like an abstract of the thesis describing the model. Was first submitted to Articles for Creation in draft. When the draft was not reviewed quickly (and AFC is still backlogged), it was then copy-pasted into article space, which can either indicate an attempt to game the system or impatience with the review process. The latter, impatience, is the good-faith explanation; the draft, which is the same as this article, would have been declined. Originator may be a single-purpose account publicizing the business process model, whether due to a conflict of interest or otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bordering on WP:G11/WP:A7 territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2021 (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.

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 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage House Studios

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

Some famous associations - does that make the venue notable? I'm not seeing the coverage for that. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously a PROMO article. All it does is list artists who recorded at the location. The only 'real' information is that it is a recording studio in Connecticut. Notability is not inherited from the people who recorded there. It's like saying Bill Gates' childhood home is worth talking about. It isn't. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at first I thought I could not find any sources on this, but dug a bit deeper and was able to find some. Perhaps there are more out there then? I've improved the article and added several sources since the nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the added sources, the coverage is mostly just "notable band recorded there." The only significant coverage comes from primary sources like Stacks of Wax (a recording company that uses the studio). I don't think this article can be salvaged to meet the standards of WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a suitable redirect could be found. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the reference meet WP:NCORP requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:43, 13 July 2021 (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.

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 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikono (art democratization)

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

Nonnotable business. No improvement since being tagged. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the parallel AfDs on the related channels: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoMenasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. See my extended comments regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2021 (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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Wallah

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. I am unable to find significant discussion of this website in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources in article are unreliable. Fails GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. We don't have articles on YouTube channels just because they have subscribers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just another promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG no independent coverage available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing like a advertisement or company profile listing promotion. See Wikipedia:Notability -- Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2021 (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.

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. Sandstein 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedics

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:ADPROMO or COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And not only all of that, the company's website (the only source around) is very, very vague as to what this outfit actually does or produces. The grand buildings depicted aren't at all like the pedestrian office building in which the subject claims to have a third floor office, and the various "news" items on the site are all press releases FROM the site. I suspect it's a bucketshop. Ravenswing 19:25, 21 June 2021 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Biomedical Devices

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:ADPROMO or COI Asketbouncer (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 5 July 2021 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Wilcox & Sons, Inc.

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

It's written without any sources, that is an apparent WP:ADPROMO or COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. The article has no references and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria although I can see announcements and generic business listings. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 5 July 2021 (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.

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. Sandstein 10:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen-Rice

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

Written like an advertisement. Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable and overtly promotional. WP is not a company directory. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:18, 22 June 2021 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iris AO, Inc.

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

Too commercial style ("radical advantages", etc). Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 5 July 2021 (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.

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. czar 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Media Rights

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

Non-notable ROTM production company. Speedy request was declined on the basis that the company has produced two TV series, but even if those are notable (and I'd say that's far from clear), per WP:INHERITORG notability is not inherited.

The article is referenced only with the company's own website, and a search finds nothing even resembling sigcov (some RS hits, yes, but not discussing the actual company itself to any meaningful extent). Hence fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in RS, lots of blogs and stuff. Company website's news section doesn't even provide evidence of anything compelling going on. ROTM indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added several more works, mentioned Netflix and other customers, added independent news source. More to come. It's still just a stub, give it half a chance. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You created this article almost a month ago (and straight away it was tagged for lack of notability); wouldn't you agree that amounts to more than half a chance already? Stub or no stub, the subject must be notable, and to establish notability you need significant coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources. I didn't find any in my BEFORE search, but if you know of some, please feel free to add them. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem the sources are out there to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 1 July 2021 (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.

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 06:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Wise Guys

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

does not meet standards for NCORP. the references are entirely mere notices or PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to meet WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH that is core for the private companies. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, failure of WP:CORP and [[[WP:CORPDEPTH]] - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapyd

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

moved by contributor from draft space, but it remains a promotional article that fails NCORP. Thissort of editing is typically COI. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have nothing to do with the company, nor with the Wise Guys. I'm just editing articles about topics that are interesting to me. I read about Rapyd on TechCrunch, so I decided to create an article. Tell me what exactly does not meet the criteria of significance, and what is advertising? I edited dozens of different articles and saw their quality and improved them as much as possible. You can see from my contribution that I am on the contrary trying to make the articles appropriate for Wikipedia and add authoritative sources.--Condiwiki (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, which lists criteria for notability, and also a list of criteria that don't connote notability - which the references section of this article closely resembles. What are the three best references that clearly connote notability per the guidelines? - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some links as examples which prove the notability and importance of the company.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/03/rapyd-which-offers-fintech-as-a-service-via-a-single-api-adds-20m-more-to-its-coffers-at-a-1-2b-valuation/
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/13/rapyd-nabs-40m-led-by-stripe-and-gc-for-fintech-as-a-service-a-single-api-for-payments-money-transfer-and-more/
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/13/rapyd-raises-300m-on-a-2-5b-valuation-to-boost-its-fintech-as-a-service-api/
https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/13/rapyd-raises-40-million-to-expand-its-payments-network-worldwide/
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israeli-fintech-company-rapyd-raises-300-million-655305
--Condiwiki (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all fundraising rounds, which are not considered sufficient to avoid deletion. See "Numerical facts" section of WP:CORP, which I referred you to above. If that's really the best you have, you're making the case for this article to be deleted - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is literally press releases, slightly churned press releases, and funding rounds (which don't connote notability). WP:REFBOMBing does not convince - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard. Seems a pretty good example of what, per WP:NORG, isn't good sourcing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2021 (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.

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 23:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collectabillia

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

almost all the references here are mere notices. about investments or individual items being sold. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability; coverage is of unremarkable things that have inherited their notability. Is thjere any limit to human gullibility?TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited through what is being sold on the website. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:41, 4 July 2021 (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.

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 23:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carsforsale.com

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

I PRODed the article for the following reasons:

created by a single-purpose user
the only sources are either own references, or references from sporting events sponsored by the company (which are things companies simply pay for)
no treatment in sources that is not superficial

The article was deleted when the PROD expired.

Shortly after, yet another single-purpose account was created, and was used to request the undeletion, which was granted as per procedure.

I am therefore AFDing it. I believe Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing tool. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, in searching for coverage, I found only three articles that had any sort of coverage of this website: [9], [10], [11]. The first two sources are pretty niche coverage and really don't tell us much about the subject. And the third source is just run of the mill business news. I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to defining "significant coverage" but given the issues flagged in the nom and the relative lack of coverage, I vote to delete.DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure marketing, no RS. Bishonen | tålk 07:26, 22 June 2021 (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.

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 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnolds

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

Non-notable bakery chain that fails WP:CORP. Deleted in 2008 for lack of reliable sources with sig coverage, WP:BEFORE today still brings up nothing . nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page in Finnish is equally sparse. JBchrch talk 09:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable business. I assume the vaunted (in 2017) expansion into Sweden didn't happen.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Faila WP:NCORP, with no significant coverage. Alex-h (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2021 (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.

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. With the sources indicated in this discussion, it is encouraged that the sourcing in the article should be improved if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shein (company)

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

Advertisement of a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A paywalled Financial Times article ("Shein leaves Boohoo and Zara on fast fashion's shelf") appears to have potential towards demonstrating notability if anyone with access can confirm? AllyD (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rai, Saritha; Chan, Vinicy; Cao, Dong; Fioretti, Julia; Hipwell, Deirde; Townsend, Matthew; Chen, Lulu Yilun; Horta E Costa, Sofia (2021-06-14). "How Trump's Trade War Built Shein, China's First Global Fashion Giant". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "On May 17, Shein — pronounced “she-in” — ended Amazon’s 152-day streak as the most downloaded shopping app in the U.S., a remarkable feat for any seven-year-old clothing brand, let alone one most Americans over 30 still haven’t heard of. The kids, though, are all over it. As with so many online phenomena, Gen Z and young millennial shoppers have propelled Shein’s rise, in thrall to the company’s never-ending, always-changing catalog of clothes at prices that stretch even the most meager allowance."
2. Fressynet, Ines (2011-06-04). "Welcome to the dark side: Why Shein might be the biggest rip-off since fast fashion was born". Euronews. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes, "Overall, Shein (previously She Inside) is a complete mystery. No phone number, no email and certainly no press contact was to be found online. Even the name of its founder remains a total enigma, as El Mundo reports." The article further notes: "Besides the seemingly low quality and virgin oil-based textiles used - everything is made with polyester, nylon and other synthetic fabrics - the main question is, who is making Shein clothing and how much are they paid? ... The fact that the Chinese brand also copies independent designers is also allegedly public knowledge, Jezebel reports."
3. Shen, Xinmei (2020-07-01). "Chinese fast fashion shopping app Shein is loved by Gen Z but banned in India". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Shein (pronounced she-in) doesn’t target its home country, China, and it doesn’t sell well there. Instead, the fast fashion online retailer primarily targets overseas markets, helping it pull in billions of dollars in sales last year."
4. Lee, Dave (2021-06-14). "Chinese ecommerce site Shein hit with trademark disputes". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Popular Chinese ecommerce platform Shein, whose big data-driven designs have propelled it to the top of app download charts, is facing complaints from apparel brands that claim it has infringed their intellectual property. ... In May of this year, according to data from AppAnnie, the company reached the top of the app download charts for shopping on both Apple and Google’s stores, while it was valued at $15bn in its most recent known funding round in August 2020, according to data from PitchBook. ... Shein’s popularity stems from its use of data analytics to quickly turn emerging fashion trends into extremely cheap products, sometimes in just a matter of days — a feat that has drawn concern over labour standards, though the company insists it keeps a close watch on its suppliers."
5. Cardinale, Juliette (2019-09-03). "Shein S'Installe Trois Jours À Paris" [Shein sets up three days in Paris]. Paulette (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
6. Darnige, Charlotte (2019-08-27). "La marque Shein ouvre un pop-up store !" [The Shein brand opens a pop-up store!]. Cosmopolitan (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
7. Rosa del Pino, Andrea M. (2019-10-08). "El misterio detrás del millonario fundador de SheIn, el gigante de la ropa 'low cost' en Internet" [The mystery behind the millionaire founder of SheIn, the giant of 'low cost' clothing on the Internet]. El Mundo (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
8. Brooks, Ryan (2021-05-22). "Online Store Shein Apologized For Selling A Phone Case Depicting A Handcuffed Black Person Outlined In Chalk". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
9. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-09). "Online Retailer Shein Was Selling A "Metal Swastika Pendant" Necklace Until People Noticed". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
10. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-06). "The Clothing Company Shein Has Apologized For Selling Muslim Prayer Mats As Decorative Rugs After A Post Went Viral". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
11. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-10). "Online Retailer Shein Apologized Twice This Week. Now It's Being Called Out Again For Selling A Necklace That Says "Allah."". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shein to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view the Wikipedia article to be be an advertisement. The Wikipedia article discusses how Shein "was sued by Levi Strauss & Co. for copying a trademarked jean stitching". The article further notes, "In June 2020, it was banned in India citing privacy concerns. In July 2020, a necklace with a swastika was pulled from sale (the brand clarified that it was a Buddhist swastika, not a Nazi swastika)."
This is negative coverage about Shein.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs), who moved this article to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I concur with Cunard, this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH as evidenced by the negative coverage cited in the article, as well as the coverage cited above. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above Coldbolt (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough balance, as per Cunard, to show it's not an advertisement. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Additional sources:

Che, Chang (2021-06-09). "A look inside Shein, the $45 billion retail enigma upending the global fashion industry". SupChina. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
"'I have to speak up': Designer claims Shein, WeWoreWhat stole her design in viral TikTok". The Daily Dot. 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH. It tends to keep a low profile, but it overtook Amazon as the most installed shopping app back in May 2021 in the US. Here are some additional significant coverage in reliable sources:

Liao, Rita (2021-05-18). "Shein overtakes Amazon as the most installed shopping app in US". TechCrunch. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-02-10). "Shein: Is China's Mysterious $15 Billion Fast Fashion Retailer Ready For Stores?". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-06-04). "Fast Fashion Retailer Shein Denies Rumors Of IPO Amid Surging Market". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
McCormick, Packy; Matthew, Brennan. "Shein: The TikTok of Ecommerce". www.notboring.co. Retrieved 27 June 2021.

Big Wang (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2021 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a vague list, with the lead section intentionally contributing to the vagueness. Some listed companies halted contribution because of politicians objecting to certifying the vote count (even though that is specifically allowed as part of the process), while other companies did so because of the US Capitol event. By leaving the criteria vague, it invites bias and invites editors to use this page to connect one political party to the Capitol event. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Is a "list of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021" open to several meanings? No, either a company halted donations or did not halt donations. That all of them did not halt donations to the same extent does not change the fact that "Did this company halt political donations in January 2021?" is a yes/no question. Is it subjective? Again, no, for the same reason. Is it supported by reliable sources? Yes, every entry on the list is sourced. As the list covers actions taken in a specific time period that has now passed, the possibility that future entries to the list will change the answers to those questions is not a concern. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think would it be more appropriate to include some comments on companies halting donations to the article Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack and naming a few prominent examples there instead of having this list. Companies halting donations is significant, but is a complete list really necessary? I don't think that in the long term it will matter which exact companies pulled their support, and these corporate reactions seems like a minor detail in the scope of the attack and even its aftermath, not enough for a stand-alone list. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Egsan Bacon's explanation of WP:LISTCRITERIA – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criteria of the list is very specific, so I'm not sure that the primary claim here applies. Additionally, the last sentence concerns me, as the assessment on the 'Capitol event' is pretty much clear, given the introductory paragraphs of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article and their corresponding references in the article body. Given that, I'm not sure what concern is being alluded to here. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Keep Everything is referenced, and its a valid topic that news media has given significant coverage of. Dream Focus 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Egsan Bacon. (Out of pragmatic concerns, seeing that a merge will not come about, and wanting to point out that my underlying rationale is still essentially a "Keep" rationale I strike my previous comment.) Merge with Sedition Caucus. The real subject of this article is the corporate/sponsor reaction to the Sedition Caucus. Both article are on the same subject, with this list presenting merely a facet of the core subject, and the substantive article lacking this (certainly notable) facet. The list would be an excellent compliment to the Sedition Caucus article, but it doesn't work that great as a separate article. Unlike the nominator who says there is vagueness in the criteria, I think that the list is sufficiently clear in that it includes companies /that/ announced suspension of donations to legislators and/or executive branch members who were challenging the vote certification. ~~I invite the Keep advocates to consider this perspective.~~ — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what a merge would look like: rev — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition Caucus appears to be an attack page, so I have nominated it for deletion as well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus. 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Keep. I don't think the merger proposal reads naturally -- it's unwieldy enough as a list to warrant its own page -- and I concur with the opinion that this list is appropriate for the wiki, but I do think it needs a bit of cleanup / updates. Some of the companies listed have vowed to permanently discontinue political donations; other companies only paused their donations, or announced their suspension lifted, and have resumed throwing money at politicians. Someone might need to keep an eye on that. RexSueciae (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While on the surface, it may appear to pass WP:LISTCRITERIA, the selection criteria is far from unambiguous. How long a pause is sufficient? Did a company have to pause in the week after January 6 to be on the list? Did a company PAC have to stop all donations or just to certain members of Congress? While the page describes itself as dynamic, are companies still making decisions in the aftermath of January 6? A better way is to use prose with examples of some companies that did pause donations in the "aftermath" section and provide a couple of links to sources that did provide a (partial) list. --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred merge target is Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Political donors. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge with the (parent) aftermath article, because the aftermath article covers a great number of notable topics and requires WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It can't accommodate either this list or an expanded passage on the companies. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The justifications for keeping the list (as seen in this discussion) are all over the place. It is far from a complete list, there are no parameters describing how a company PAC makes it onto (or off) the list as there is no distinguishing between limited suspension to certain members of Congress, full pauses, and stopping political donations altogether. Just being referenced is not a reason to keep a list. The broader point can be quickly summarized in one or two paragraphs with some example companies mentioned in the prose, the number of company PACs who announced a pause in donations, and perhaps a quote or two. Also see WP:10YT. --Enos733 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (note: alr. !voted) on Keep/Merge specifically: Keep would be fine, Merge horizontally with sedition caucus would also be fine, but Merge upward with aftermath would be positively terrible. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- as I noted above, given the choice between "keep" or "merge" my preference would be to keep. RexSueciae (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important subject, valued by reliable sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the creator of this List, I believe it brings important historical value, and with 8,000 pageviews thus far, I must not be alone in that belief. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it meets list criteria. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (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.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I've been looking at this page for a few days now. The association doesn't seem notable in the slightest. The user who created it, Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), is connected to the association (and has not declared a COI yet, even after it was mentioned in Administrators' noticeboard). I've made a lengthy analysis of the sources and external links in the article, which results in quite a few deadlinks, non-independent sources and other stuff. Nothing that makes me think this association meets WP:CORP.

Source analysis.

Nr.	Source	Analysis
1	[12]	International Standard Name Identifier page. Doesn't have any information.
2	[13]	Source published by the Azerbaijani State. Since the association is connected to the state, sources published by the government cannot be considered independent. Apart from that, the source only briefly mentions the association.
3	[14]	Source published by the Azerbaijani State.
4	[15]	Deadlink.
5	[16]	Exact same source as the second one, but just in Russian. The sole purpose of it is to contribute to the REFBOMBING.
6	[17]	Deadlink.
7	[18]	Even the article on Az-wiki says "Qafqazinfo's main source of funding is advertising and PR articles". I don't see this being independent.
8	[19]	Deadlink.
9	[20]	Doesn't look independent. The source is about the "Order of Pomegranate", not the association.
10	[21]	Copy of the eleventh source.
11	[22]	Source published by the Azerbaijani State. Again, the source is about the "Order of Pomegranate", not the association.
12	[23]	Source about someone getting the "Order of Pomegranate".
13	[24]	Doesn't look independent. About the third year anniversary event of the association.
-	[25]	Deadlink.
-	[26]	A letter sent to the President of Azerbaijan by the association.
-	[27]	The source announces the opening of the website of the association. The text says: "During the solemn event, awards were presented to everyone who took an active part in the activities of the association. Among them are Ilgar Pashazade, Director of the National Representative Office of the Mir Interstate TV and Radio Company, and Narmin Abasova, Editor-in-Chief". The publication was given an award and they are reporting on that.
-	[28]	About the third year anniversary event of the association. Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
-	[29]	Haqqin.az "is known to be "pro-Azerbaijan", "criticizing Azerbaijani opposition parties", "offensive" and "a site about Azerbaijan's security services"". Don't think this sounds independent.
-	[30]	Deadlink.
-	[31]	Deadlink.
-	[32]	Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
-	[33]	Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
-	[34]	Source is about the Goychay Pomegranate Festival, not a mention of the association.
-	[35]	Source is mostly about the Goychay Pomegranate Festival. Repeats the words of the president of the association.

~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I ask you to seriously consider this article from various angles, it is necessary to dive deeply into the subject under discussion. If some points in the significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed. Reliable references are many.

There are authoritative sources.

Strong keep: ref. 1, ref. 2, ref. 3, ref. 4, ref. 5, ref. 6, ref. 7 In December 2018, "Azerbaijan Pomegranate" badge was established by the Association with the consent of the Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The main purpose of the establishment of this badge is to reward the persons who have contributed and served in the development of pomegranate growing, Association activity in the Azerbaijan Republic.

History

"Azerbaijan Pomegranate" badge was established by the order of the chairman of the Association of pomegranate producers and exporters of Azerbaijan No. 01/2018, dated 3 September 2018 to reward the persons who contributed to the development of pomegranate growing. Patent and Trademark Expert Center of Intellectual Property Agency of the Azerbaijan Republic accepted the badge for examination on 31 January 2019.

Aims and objectives

The main purpose of the creation of this badge is to maintain the economic, cultural and social importance of the pomegranate by awarding the people who contribute and pay attention to the Azerbaijani pomegranate and services and work in the activities of the Association of Pomegranate Producers and Exporters (PPEAA). --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read what I said did you? Some of the "sources" you listed are already in the analysis. You keep listing government sources, which are not independent. Others repeat the words of the president, which are primary sources. I also don't see the point of telling the history of the badge. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 07:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any convincing reasons for deleting the article, there are signs of encyclopedic significance.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah apart from the fact that no independent and reliable sources cover the subject and that this is obviously promotional. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider these sources to be advertising? en news, tr news, ru news, books. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care about sources that at best briefly mention the association? The sources need to about the association itself (at least detailed per WP:SIGCOV), independent, without repeating the words of the president of the association. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Through these links, I can see no sources about the organization but annual pomegranate exportation of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the article wouldn't fit in neither Economy of Azerbaijan nor Agriculture in Azerbaijan, in a case of merge. Since the links you mentioned above does not have any reliable source concentrating in the organization, but annual export of Azerbaijan, it doesn't cover WP:NGO so it should be deleted. — Pamphylian ● 💬 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the discussion here, it seems that you, Turkish-speaking Wikipedians, want to do your best to delete the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good that you got the point that we indeed delete articles about non-notable subjects. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your actions, otherwise I will have to contact the admins. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy if you took this to AN/I. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content is about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, a notable topic with coverage in many books and academic papers, rather than specifically about this trade body, which does not appear notable. Wouldn't it be better, Elshad Iman, to rename and refactor the article to be about the more general topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article contains ads, they should be erased. Where are the advertising signs? save a significant part to become an encyclopedic one, the organization has an authoritative source, and let the about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan remain on the plans for the time being. Similar articles - Pomegranate, Goychay Pomegranate Festival --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you aren't getting me: whole existence of this article about a non-notable association is an ad. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A non-profit organization is generally significant if it operates on a national or international scale.
A non-profit association, it can not be a priori advertising, this is an indisputable proof that the organization is significant.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course non-profit associations can advertise. In my experience they do so almost as much as for-profit associations, and I have been on the boards of both. And the only proof that there can be that this organization is notable (which is the standard for having a Wikipedia article, not significance) can come from independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - brief, passing mentions here and there; nothing towards WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article can be saved. This is the only association in this field (at least in Azerbaijan), which is very popular and even has its own price. But let's be reasonable and reach a consensus. the non-profit association is an indisputable proof of the importance of the organization.--Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Araz Yaquboglu: I already expected you to eventually come (also surprised Toghrul R isn't here yet). So what you are saying is basically "the non-profit organization is notable because it's non-profit", confirm? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Styyx are you refering me as a troll or a sockpuppet? and please, can you elaborate why you haven't pinged me when making this kind of statement? Toghrul R (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No no, never said that. I'm not on azwiki, but I'm pretty sure you two are well-respected sysops. It's just that whenever an AfD starts about an article created by Elshad İman, you always seem to pop up from somewhere, even on frwiki. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Styyx, then please, stay focused on the thread, not me. My activity is not up for debate here, particularly in a discussion i'm not involved in. "Pop up from sonewhere" is not a good choice of sentence to address me — please, be POLITE. If anything, i've nominated Elshad's one of the articles in the past, you can check it if you will: here --Toghrul R (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am focusing on the article, the full message contains a read-back of what was said by Araz Yaquboglu, just a brief mention of the "problem". But indeed, I'm not the nicest person when it comes to vote- and stealth canvassing. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant organization that regulates the key agricultural sector of a single state. I think that common sense will still prevail.--Erokhin (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erokhin: common sense says that the organization still needs to pass GNG and that there isn't any evidence to show that it's "significant" in the first place. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello, I stumbled upon this article and decided to express my take on it. This association is the only one in Azerbaijan in the given field. Thus I think it can be kept regardless the small problems in references. I think this weaknesses will be addressed and fixed in the near future. --leilahuseynova (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leila1717: that's based on which policy may I ask? Also I wouldn't classify the reference problem as "small". ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think that problems in references are small. They are the whole point of this discussion, at least when it comes to what sources are available. I repeat my plea for interested editors to make this an article about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, which is an obviously notable subject, as opposed to this trade organisation, which can be mentioned in such an article if verified. Why are people so fixated on having an article about a trade organisation when we don't even have an article about the trade that it represents? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should treat officially trade association as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official trade association. I can't and any previous discussion on this, or any relevant guideline, but it seems to have been longstanding practice. I think this is a case where an argument based on WP:OSE is in fact valid, as a matter of precedent. I set before you Farmers' Organization Authority and its many sub cats such as Danish Christmas Tree Growers Association. A few examples, taken from that cat, are Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, European Flavour Association, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association. These are all supported largely or solely through official sources. Ther should probably be an SNG on this topic, but I think this is as good a place as any to start one, as SNGs ususlly start with practice.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The essay strongly discourages you to use this in deletion discussions: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" and "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article". OSE is only valid when some stuff exist for a reason. Anyway, looking at the articles linked, all of them meet WP:GNG with their sourcing apart from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. This is a reason to delete that article, not to keep this one. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the GNG is a guideline (not a policy). At the head of the page, as for pretty much every guideline page, it says ... is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Styyx's comments above seem to treat the GNG as absolute and unchallangable. There are a number of categories of articles where secondary sources are not required to support an article. An article about a legally recognized popular place, as per WP:GEOLAND may be acepted base purely oin primary sources that show its existence. An article about a member of a national legislature is acceptable even if we have no more than primary official sources that establish that the person existed and was a member, as is the case for many historical legislators, particularly those prior to 1900. Such articles are accepted merely on official records of membership in a legislature, and perhaps official records of speeches made or votes cast. Articles about radio stations are accepted based purely on primary sources showing that they have been licensed and operated. Articles about secondary and tertiary schools are often accepted based just on primary sources showing that they existed, and perhaps were official government schools. In short, not all categories of articles require independent secondary sources. I am suggesting that a non-profit associations and trade associations officially presented by a nation should be a similar category. I am arguing that a wide group of Wikipedia articles have been created and remained in existence on that basis, and that few of these have been challenged, and that in at least one case linked earlier in this discussion, such a challenge was made and rejected. There have, if I am not mistaken, been recent discussions at DRV suggesting that an AfD discussion may in good faith make a reasoned exception to the GNG, and that such local consensus will not be overturned by DRV. I am suggesting that a new SNG should be created to cover this case. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLAND is an SNG, which says that populated places can get an article even if there aren't sources. Fair, so I'm not going to start an AfD about these kind places. In case there is no SNG, we look at GNG. But I got to stop you there, because we already have an SNG for non-profit organizations: WP:NONPROFIT. This association meets criteria #1, but doesn't meet criteria #2 (both have to be met). For this association to have an article on Wikipedia, there have to be independent, reliable sources that cover the organization in detail (Criteria #2 of WP:NONPROFIT). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XDXT.pdf - independent, reliable source

Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association – PPEAA was recently awarded a grant from the EU for the STEP (Support to Effective Pomegranate Production) project and has a plan to provide capacity building for pomegranate producers in the central regions of Azerbaijan through development of extension services in selected communities. The extension service centers will provide required technical assistance to selected communities’ pomegranate growers. PSA will closely collaborate with PPEAA to leverage the STEP project’s technical assistance on capacity building, organizational development, community-based, small-scale processing funding, and expertise on specific production and processing topics.

https://eu4azerbaijan.eu/az/narciliq-d%c9%99y%c9%99r-z%c9%99ncirind%c9%99-ustun-keyfiyy%c9%99tin-%c9%99ld%c9%99-edilm%c9%99si-v%c9%99-d%c9%99yisiklikl%c9%99r%c9%99-d%c9%99st%c9%99k/ - independent, reliable source

Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association (PPEAA) supports pomegranate growers in the seven central regions of Azerbaijan and seeks support in organizational development and sustainability, as well as capacity building for its farmer members through improved extension services.

http://files.eacce.org.ma/pj/%5B1540387328%5DAz_UE.pdf - independent, reliable source
https://www.eurofresh-distribution.com/news/eu-authorises-imports-pomegranate-azerbaijan - independent, reliable source
http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/article/176960/azerbaijan-eyes-europe-for-pomegranates - independent, reliable source
https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9150290/azerbaijan-bilasuvar-region-exports-pomegranates-to-russia/ - independent, reliable source
https://atm.gov.az/en/news/215/minister-of-agriculture-held-online-video-conferen/
about association on official site.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate about WP:NONPROFIT. This association meets criteria #1 and #2. I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources linked above are also related to Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, so there is still no way this meets criteria #2. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Union
MOROCCO FOODEX, Food Export Control and Coordination organization
United States Agency for International Development An independent, reliable sources write about the association. Speedy keep --37.26.33.99 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding it very hard to accept that we should have an article about this trade organisation rather than an article about the national trade that it represents, which is well covered by the article and the sources in the article, cited in this discussion, and readily available elsewhere. How, as seems obvious to me, is this not better for Wikipedia? I hope it's not that anyone has a conflict of interest, but I don't understand why there should be such resistance otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to plan the consideration and creation of the article "Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan" in accordance with the proposals discussed here. The association's article proved that what was said above is notable and would be right to keep it. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this topic is about an organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which interprets the requirements in a strict fashion. In summary, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. *None* of the references in the article or listed in this AfD meet the criteria. They either discuss the market of pomegranite production or are press releases or announcements. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I was invited to this discussion by Elshad Iman, the text of that email was "Hello, dear colleague, take part in the discussion please. [link to this discussion]". I don't recall any previous interaction with them, or with this topic area so I don't know how or why I was chosen, but it seems likely I was not the only editor emailed. I have no opinion regarding this article and have no intention of forming one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of reporting the same. Indiscriminate notifications violate the canvassing guidelines, and the closer should take this fact into account. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading this discussion, the nom is convincing per WP:ORGDEPTH. JBchrch talk 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, please delete the article and end the discussion, there are reliable and independent sources, but if there is such a contradiction, then let all information be deleted. OK --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer The article covers an encyclopedic topic. It is not a question of the author of the article sending a letter to someone to participate in the discussion, the topic of the article should be the subject of discussion.

Non-profit organizations / public organizations
Organizations are usually significant if they simultaneously meet the following criteria: They operate on a national or international scale. Information about the organization and its activities is widely reflected in unaffiliated independent authoritative sources. Additional recommendations:
A non-profit / public organization of the regional (regional, district) level, having national or international fame, may be considered as significant.

The talk page of the article also touches on interesting points, and I consider the final decision fair.

Practice shows that the importance of a non-profit organization, including an association in the field of entrepreneurship/agriculture, can be shown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-profit_organizations_by_country --37.26.33.99 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no final decision at Talk:Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan. Which decision are you talking about? All I see is an unsubstantiated claim that someone from the WMF has accepted the bribe of a jolly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: Yesterday, Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) emailed me and asked me to participate in the discussion. I haven't the faintest clue why, but I suspect I'm the not only person he has approached, so I thought I should say something. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hello everyone who participated in the discussion, please let me know, if the text of the article is reworked and if it is rewritten, in short, if the article is dedicated solely to the association, then is it possible to save the article? Currently, the only reason for being nominated for deletion is that the text of the article covers the topic of pomegranate in a more comprehensive way than the association, and I do not see any other valid reason.--85.132.29.163 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to delete the article, just need to rewrite it. There are enough sources for the article. This article should be completely rewritten.

The criterion for the significance of Wikipedia is the detailed coverage of any subject or topic in independent and authoritative sources.

· The content and text of the page do not contradict the rules of Wikipedia. I note that the page contains a link to the reflected information, this information does not violate anyone's copyright, all information is relevant to the page title.

· There are no spelling mistakes, long monologues, unstructured materials, flames, information published in another language, hoaxes, lies and slander on the page.

· The page is not intended for vandalism.

· The page is unique and is not a copy of another page.

· the content of the page is based only on facts.

As you can see, the page cannot be deleted by any of the above criteria.--37.26.33.99 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2021 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Spirits

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

Single claim to fame is non-notable. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References 1, 2, and 4 are good enough. (I don’t get ref 3, is it broken?) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Grossman, Eric (2016). Craft Spirits: Know the Makers, Infuse Your Own, Create New Cocktails. New York: Penguin Random House. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-4654-4384-7. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book provides two pages of coverage (including some photos) of Sacred Microdistillery.
2. Brown, Tina (2018). Gin: An Illustrated History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-8006-4. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book provides 2.5 pages of text and four pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
3. Stephenson, Tristan (2016). The Curious Bartender's Gin Palace. London: Ryland Peters & Small. ISBN 978-1-84975-701-0. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book proves two pages of text and several pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sacred Spirits to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these books are a particularly good source, nor is two of them particularly independent. One of the authors is an industry journalist. I can't see the third book. The cocktail one has been choosen for its taste. If that constitutes notability I don't know what doesn't. There is 52 gin distilleries inside the M25 (London), and 315 in the UK in total, with 4-5 being added every month. The market is not saturated. They're is one in my village of Houston. They are everywhere, as it is easy to setup. So it is generic category. The only reason it is stood out for inclusion is the special branding and the fact that it has been created in somebodies garden, along with 100000 people that tried to create gin. It very easy to do. Apart from them being as common as muck, there is no fact that makes this gin distillery standout, in this article. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The books are independent of Sacred Spirits. I see no evidence to indicate otherwise. That a company has received significant coverage in three books means it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage present in article certainly meets GNG. The nominator's objections seem to amount to WP:OSE--but if we have 50 gin distilleries in London that have this level of independent RS'ing, then by all means let us have 50 such articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Did you examine the entries in the books? Can you tell me exactly why the distillery is notable? scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The books constitute independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2021 (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.

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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funimation Channel

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be an article for something that is non-existent, and thus would not be notable. The article seems to have been revived, after having been moved from Funimation Channel to Toku (TV network) in 2015. There is no source that confirms that Funimation Channel exists from 2016 onwards, after the service was shut down in 2015, according to The Fandom Post. Furthermore, the majority of the content on this page is just taken from Toku (TV network). The current article states that Funimation Channel is an SVOD service, however, there is no source that confirms an existence of an SVOD service named Funimation Channel, with this source found in the article stating that Funimation would relaunch a new cable channel in 2016 (which never happened), not an SVOD service. Furthermore, there is no source corroborating the launch date, nor that the relaunch was an SVOD service. The SVOD service that Funimation actually operates is named "Funimation", formerly named "FunimationNow" until 2020, and that service is already covered as part of the Funimation article. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 11:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Funimation#Funimation_Channel. Not notable enough for its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Funimation#Funimation_Channel Outside merging the 2006-15 Funimation infobox, everything about their cable service has already been cleanly merged over time as a natural transition from cable to streaming, though a separate List of programs aired by Funimation article may be needed for the FC programming section (though sourcing issues should be addressed). Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is necessary to create a separate list article, given that shows that aired on Funimation Channel on cable are listed on Toku (TV network), and most other titles Funimation has can be found on Category:Funimation. tenshibeat (talk|contribs) 09:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I did not see there was a Funimation cat..so outside the IB continuity, a redirect is good without needing to transfer the List of. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The IP address tried to create something like this at List of programs broadcast by Funimation Channel, but it was converted to a redirect. Link20XX (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Funimation#Funimation Channel and add a hatnote in that section pointing to Toku (TV network) per nom. I agree this article is unnecessary. Link20XX (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2021 (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.

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. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivone

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

Fails NCORP. None of the sources satisfies the criteria of CORPDEPTH as they are about deals and acquisitions. This article in Economic Times is from Brand Equity which is basically ET's press release section. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources are either trivial or primary in nature. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 27 June 2021 (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.

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 merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries. Clear consensus for the page not to exist (delete + merge), so per ATD, closing as merge & redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrongVPN

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG. It has significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than basic program spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe that it's quite spam, I cannot find any independent sourcing outside of reviews.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being notable and border line spam/promotional. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries: Not notable enough to warrant its own article. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since I already casted my vote and others are disagreeing. I don't see any problems with reviews. They provide significant, independent reliable coverage of the subject. They are published by TechRadar (who calls it "a major VPN brand"), ZDNet, Tom's Hardware and PCWorld who all meet the WP:RS requirements. Apart from the reviews, the subject is mentioned in works published by academic publishers like Springer Publishing and Association for Computing Machinery and the acquisition has been mentioned in the news. Based on these sources, the subject can have a standalone article per WP:GNG, and can also be extended. The article is written with WP:NPOV in mind, I don't think it is promotional or spam at all. Also, the article has been extended since being nominated. Above of that, the nominator has been accused here of improper nominations and not following WP:BEFORE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but beside the point. The nominator is not being discussed here, the article is. The article subject actually fails GNG, as 'mentions' don't have weight in SIGCOV. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No defining features that make it unique, or notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is checked by validating sources against WP:GNG, which is fine in this case. Also, please read WP:IGNORINGATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as WP:ATD. With what's currently in the article a brief section on the parent companies article seems like a good solution. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another, non-notable program; or Merge a (referenced) line to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as suggested above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting my reply here so it is clear it was posted after the relisting. @GenQuest: I was only discussing the nominator after stating my relevant argument. And the article does not fail WP:GNG, you are reading my comment the wrong way. It is only 'just' mentioned in the academic source by ACM. In the Springer article, there is a paragraph about their logging policy. The reviews I mentioned earlier definitely provide SIGCOV (and all the other aspects required for the GNG). Please evaluate them yourself before voting delete. I am still voting keep. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources are cited. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOBRO Marine, Inc.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of being notable as a shipyard. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Noting that the creator has been indeffed for running a massive spamsock farm. --Blablubbs|talk 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)~~ Unblocked again, not sure what happened there. --Blablubbs|talk 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 24 June 2021 (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.

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 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irevna

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NCORP. A BEFORE search only turned up routine coverage related to acquisitions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Bungstnk (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an offshoring division of CRISIL (itself a subsidiary of S&P Global), describing office locations, past acquisitions and renamings, but without providing claims or evidence of encyclopaedic notability. There's a mention of Irevna in this 2020 article about CRISIL so perhaps Irevna should be mentioned in the CRISIL article, but I don't see sufficient to demonstrate WP:NCORP for Irevna itself. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (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.

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 14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modere

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

Non-notable business. Current version of the article is unreferenced, but that's because some recent promotional (possible COI) editing. However, previous versions were also weakly supported, and much of the cites had to do with some earlier tax fraud etc. related to the company. A search finds nothing that comes even close to RS sigcov; the best I could come up with were a couple of Forbes 'sites' pieces and some press release regurgitations, none of which establish notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable. Promo article. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedic article. Article has subjective and biased style, as well as puffery and unverified sources that lack independence. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilegov

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose text sets out the wares of a defunct company. I updated the article in 2018 to include the company's renaming and then demise. I then added a PROD notice with the rationale "This former company received some product coverage and listings in start-up awards but not the sustained and in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH" but I see the PROD was challenged. Looking again for sources (for both the Mobilegov and later Login People names and their main product name) I am finding mainly sporadic announcements from their lifespan which are trivial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. The most substantial source is the WebTime Medias posting about the firm's funding difficulties and closure - a thorough-enough piece which could contribute towards WP:NCORP but which does not in itself indicate any attainments which would be of encyclopaedic notability, so my opinion continues to be that this article fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 22 June 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roehr Motorcycle Company

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

I couldn't find anything to establish WP:CORP and there are only weak sources towards WP:GNG. After 12 years in CAT:NN's backlog, hopefully we can get it sorted. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've worked the article over just a little since it was nominated. We now have citations to notable publications or book (series) Motor Cycle News, Motorcyclist (magazine), and Complete Idiot's Guides; plus further reading at notable publications Wired (magazine) and RideApart. The publication dates span 2006 to 2011. I think this suffices to show SIGCOV required by WP:GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, article has been improved since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2021 (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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TH Heavy Engineering Berhad

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

Non-notable company. Sources provided do not establish notability. ♟♙ (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If asking me off course I want the article to be remain in wikipedia but it's up to you. I'd try my best. This is my reasons:

1)Sources from The Edge, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters already strong. Who doesn't know them right? The reason this media outlet cover this company off course because it well known. I'd also observed that there a lot of company page in Wikipedia that their notability low than this. Some only had one source and even worse that one source is not reliable enough. If that page passed why not this?

2)This company is LISTED company in Bursa Malaysia. It is Public limited company and publicly trade. Big and notable enough.(see references in page)

3)This company client includes Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, ExxonMobil, Sarawak Shell Berhad, Sabah Shell Petroleum Co., Talisman Energy Malaysia Ltd., Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, Keppel Corporation FELS, MHES Asia Sdn Bhd, Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, New eld Exploration Co., Woodside Petroleum PLC, Murphy Oil Sarawak Oil Co., Ltd. That notable enough to me. If some wikipedian don't ever heard about this company it doesn't mean its not notable. Who are we compared to that big companies that already be its clients.

4)UPDATED as June 22 2021, Added source from Google Books

Cheers :)

Kistara (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage. The WSJ and Reuters "sources" are just stock price trackers, and all the other sources are either not reliable, not independent, or consistent of only trivial coverage. The fact that the company has had important clients does not make it notable by itself. When the best argument for keeping is that other stuff exists, then the article should not be kept. Mlb96 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already stated, none of the sources contain significant coverage, and the article does not pass WP:GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:57, 25 June 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Sleep

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

I've tried to fix the promotional issues, but this page is written so badly that to fix it would be a waste of volunteer time. The references given barely qualify the subject for WP:GNG, most of the surces don't count as WP:RS and there is nothing suggesting the subject is anything other that your typical mattress company. Johnny three shoes 96 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage relies heavily on a couple of PR stunts, not enough to establish notability outside of that Dexxtrall (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 22 June 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMC Hickton Madeley Architects

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage. Dead company. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find anything more about this firm than directory entries and passing mentions. So, it seemingly fails WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (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.

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. There is clear SPA/COI going on here, and arguments clearly influenced by that are discounted. That leaves some argument over the sources, and the analysis presented indicating that they are not acceptable is persuasive and was in no way refuted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTax (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Appeal as here. (കാവിന്പുറം is Kāvinpuṛaṃ) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@കാവിന്പുറം: Appeal by User:കാവിന്പുറം for page ClearTax (company) to be kept. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClearTax and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClearTax (2nd nomination)) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Blatant WP:PROMO article.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recent improvements to the article have been enough to sway me to the keep side. WP:PROMO No longer applies here.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherites Fails WP:GNG. Kieem trra (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has signicant Coverage on Forbes^[1], Techcrunch^[2] , Entreprenuer^[3] websites and is covered extensively in Indian Media. As per the Notability guidelines "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." These references is covering enough Notability Guidelines.-- User:കാവിന്പുറം for page ClearTax (company)
Keep ClearTax is a well-known brand in India and is known for its Free ITR software which helps Taxpayer file their income tax without any complication.The brand is covered in non PR articles by all popular Media in India like The Hindu^[4], Times of India^[5], IndianExpress^[6] and strongly disagree with Notability issues other editors pointed out. User:AnitaTejwani
Keep The Indian taxpayers are well-acquainted with the company as nearly 10% of them have filed through their platform ^[7]^[8]. The company has been covered multiple times by the Indian mainstream newspapers as well as in the Indian and global venture capital publications^[9]. Notable bias might exist among non-Indian editors on the coverage and significance as the operations are limited within the Indian boundaries.

References

^ "How ClearTax Is Transforming To A Full-stack Fintech Player". Forbes India. Retrieved 2021-05-09.
^ Catherine, Shu (June 24, 2014). "YC-Backed ClearTax Tackles India's Fast Growing Online Tax Filing Market". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
^ Kochar, Ritu (2016-05-26). "An Indian Startup That Has Wooed Both Sequoia Capital And Founders Fund". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
^ {{cite news|https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/how-simple-and-effective-is-the-cleartax-e-filing-app/article29030045.ece
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/flipkart-partners-with-cleartax-to-simplify-financial-processes-for-sellers/articleshow/70129817.cms
^ https://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/e-portals-make-filing-income-tax-returns-easier-2891365/
^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/5-more-income-tax-returns-filed-this-year/articleshow/80231571.cms
^ https://cleartax.in/you
^ https://pitchbook.com/newsletter/cleartax-files-away-12m-series-a-investment

Keep. While the COI editing and voting at this AFD is an issue, what has substantially changed with this article since the past several AFDs is the sources. There are three sources from 2021 of those listed above which are significant: the one from Forbes India, The Hindu, and TechCrunch. I'm not sure how independent or reliable the Entrepreneur source is (it may be fine), and the other sources are purely promotional garbage or not significant. Ultimately, I do believe that the sources prove WP:SIGCOV and meet the criteria at WP:NCORP. It appears the promotional language of the article has been cleaned up (see this edit), so I think the article is passable at this point. It still needs weeding of some inappropriate sources, but AFD is not cleanup. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTADVERT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page is at ClearTax (company) because the correct title ClearTax was deleted at AfD twice (in addition to some speedy deletions) and the title was salted. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Lets look at the references posted above which have been put forward as meeting the criteria for establishing notability:
- TechCrunch article is a company profile which relies on a generic company description an interview with the founder. There is no "Independent Content", the journalist has not provided any opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation of their own and has simply repeated the information provided by the company. This reference fails WP:ORGIND.
- Entrepreneur reference is "contributor" piece which is not regarded as reliable for supporting content as per WP:RSP. If it can't be relied on, it cannot be considered for establishing notability, fails WP:RS
- The Hindu reference starts by posing a great question, whether the topic company can be trusted. The article then provides an outline of the "problem" and uses quotations from the founder to explain the "solution". The journalist then describes the experience with the app and includes reactions from social media and som eusers who claim that the app is not easy to use. The article is negative on the app - but there is no criticism *of the company* nor any in-depth information *on the company* which is what is required for a reference to support the notability of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Times of India reference is based entirely on a press release. Several similar "articles" including identical text and quotes can be found including, for example, thenewsminute.com, mint, Apparel Resource, Fashion Network and lots others. Fails WP:ORGIND
- Indian Express reference lists a number of companies who assist users with their tax obligations. The topic company gets a mere mention-in-passing attached to a quotation from the founder. There is no in-depth information on the company and no "Independent Content", fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- Economic Times reference talks about the number of tax returns having risen over the previous year. The reference doesn't even mention the topic company so I'm confused as to how anyone thinks this reference can be used to establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Clearly there's some confusion from the Keep !voters above who appear not to have correctly analysed the references. It appears that many stop their analysis once the company has been mentioned in a publication and claim that "significant coverage" is all that is required. That is incorrect - the guidelines make it clear that each reference must have both in-depth information and "independent content". None of those references meet the criteria. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per reasons stated above by HighKing. Slovenichibo (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerulean Studios

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

I cannot find evidence of independent notability for the company, separate from Trillian, which is notable. Redirect was reverted without comment, so we're here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trillian. I cant find anything in the way of notability. I'm not sure why the redirect was removed without an explanation unless it was by accident. Perhaps AirportExpert would like to weigh in?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, leaving the edit summary blank was accidental. Deleting the article should be fine however, but I think it would be appropriate to merge more components of the Cerulean Studios article with the Trillian page, to give further context behind the company that created the software. Trillian seems to be the only product of the company with any real notability, so its probably for the best that the two remain on the same page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Thanks AirportExpert, but I'm slightly confused. That's what I had done, and exactly what my line of thinking was. If you agree, why did you change it back to its own page? Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just wanted to be able to visualize the layout of the article independently, and transfer everything over to the redirect page, such as the infobox. The sandbox would've been a better use of that though I suppose, since I ended up not being able to finish and left the article only partially edited. Either way, lesson learned.--AirportExpert (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong delete. WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH are not even close here. The company itself is not notable. How did it stay on Wikipedia for 15 years? Asketbouncer (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even remotely notable Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (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.

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. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Moran

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO, does not appear to meet standards for notability. I've checked the sources present and many sources on google and they amount to trivial mentions. While Conoco is certainly notable, it does not appear that Moran is on his own. The article was originally submitted and then draftified at Draft: Dan Moran for lack of encyclopedic tone and sources / notability, then recreated as a new article here by the same editor. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: I'm convinced by the current "Keep" arguments, which include sources I did not see upon nomination. Seeing no need to drag this process out further, I seek to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to the other editors for their work in defending this article. A S U K I T E 04:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Continental Oil: How Dan Moran piped it to prosperity with a 2,100-mile gasoline line, and has staked its future in Gulf Coast sands". Fortune. June 1939. pp. 79–96. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  This is a 10,000 word article published in Fortune in 1939 that profiles Dan Moran's work at Continental Oil. The articles notes in the first paragraph:
  Until the summer of 1928, when he was invited to 23 W all Street for lunch, Dan Moran had not given much though to the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. Born at Cygnet, Ohio, he had picked up cash as an office boy and as a telegraph operator, earned his way through the University of Dayton, and then had gone south. To Tulsa, where he saw the oil spout from the Glenn Pool strike, then to Port Arthur, where he signed up as an engineer for the Texas Co. From there he was sent down to Panama and to South America, and from South America he had trekked north again into Mexico and to the States. By the summer of '28 he had done a number of things that are not common practice in Manhattan or on Long Island. He had got good work out of a crew of jailbirds and peons at Tampico. He had spent seventeen days in a hurricane on an oil barge. He had helped repair the ravages of another hurricane, which, ripping through Port Arthur, had floated away the oil tanks of the Texas Co.'s refinery there like so many toy ships. He had built refineries, drilled for oil, and had put up ocean terminals at Charleston, at Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile, Key West, and in Cuba. And in the process he had learned something of men and something of the sweet-smelling stuff called crude.
  The article further notes: "BEHIND those figures lie the work of the 5,000 men and the $125,000,000 worth of oil derricks, pipe lines, and properties that Dan Moran manages for $75,000 per year. And it is worth while inquiring into how he earns that salary, not only because he is a crack operator, but because Continental occupies a peculiar place in the oil industry." The article later notes:
  On properties he kept in operation Moran insisted on strict economies. When he took over the company he was appalled by the unused equipment lying around refineries and oil wells. Turning junkman, he gathered up as much of this as possible, sent salesmen out on the road hawking it for what they could get. In one respect only was he lavish: from '31 to '34 he figures he spent some $1,500,000 in paint alone. changing many a dilapidated-looking derrick of the Marland Co. into a spruce operating unit.
2. "Careerist In Petroleum Dan Moran Laid To Rest". Longview News-Journal. 1948-04-11. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The obituary notes: "Petroleum industry careerist Dan Moran, 59, who for nearly two decades headed the Continental Oil company, died April 3 in a Houston hospital. Rites were held in Houstin April 5 and burial was there." The article is an extensive obituary of Dan Moran.
3. "Dan Moran Dies in Hospital After Several Months' Illness" (pages 1 and 2). The Ponca City News. 1948-04-04. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article is an extensive obituary for Dan Moran. The article notes: "Moran was born at Cygnet, Ohio, on May 31, 1888, one of the four sons of Mr. and Mrs. Martin Moran, who followed their father in the petroleum industry. ... Dan got his start in the oil industry at the age of [illegible] at which time he was messenger boy for the Buckeye Pipe Line company. Earning a bachelor of arts degree, Dan Moran was graduated from the University of Dayton, Ohio, in 1907, and later did graduate work at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, Ohio."
4. "Dan Moran, Builder". The Ponca City News. 1947-11-19. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Fate in the guise of ill health has forced the retirement of Dan Moran, for nearly 20 years president of Continental Oil company. In the retirement Ponca City loses a warm friend, Continental a great executive and the oil industry a forceful, fearless and intelligently aggressive leader. He along with a group of young men who came into the industry about the time of World War I placed it at the top among American business institutions and remained with it to see it become the premier world business."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dan Moran to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create, 2021-06 ✗ R2, 2021-06 move to → Draft:Dan Moran

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the current state of the article leaves much to be desired, sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to the detailed obituaries and Fortune profile listed above, Moran is the central figure in a 2 page story in Sidewalks of America (1954), excerpted from Then Came Oil: The Story of the Last Frontier (1936), and there are over 100 hits for Dan Moran in oil industry trade journals at the Internet Archive. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to be long to be complete, neutral, and well written: there are enough reliable, independent sources chronicling his life and career to make a decent article without invoking original research. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, while I think the subject meets notability guidelines, the laudatory, padded, magazine-style profile at Draft:Dan Moran is not appropriate nor encyclopedic in its current form. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2021 (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.

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. czar 06:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareONE

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

No Notability 8ya (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "end-to-end Software and Cloud Technology Solutions" Yummy! Also, if you're standing up your WP page on Businesswire, you're toast. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article depends on the press releases. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and To be improved The actual state of the article is really poor, but when looking to the original articles SoftwareONE (alsWP) rsp. SoftwareONE (deWP), the abvoe argument The whole article depends on the press releases can easily be refuted and used for upgrading. E.g. KKR involved, MS Partner of the Year, CRN: #14 of 500, sales US$ 7 bn. AVS (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modified 'Conservation' to 'Keep' according the usual terminology. AVS (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Avernarius: Sorry if I am getting things wrong since this is my first time requesting a delete, but don't those fall under WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage? 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. Of course, it's easy to delete - but our strive always should be, to improve instead negate. Need help with translation? AVS (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can read both the Alemannic and the German version, but I don't really see a reason for those to be Wikipedia articles either, as they don't offer much more on notability as far as I can see 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made some changes now, though I think, it should be done by you, as initiant. AVS (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, but I don't think any of these fulfill our criteria for notability, as they should fall under the points raised before 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying. Let's decide the community. AVS (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we decide the community? :) 8ya (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics replaces missing arguments :-( AVS (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to argue here, I am simply asking why you think the way you do and get an "it's annoying" :-((( 8ya (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of again and again renewing your demamands, please study Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It's you, who's in obligation to be active, as its YOU, who wants an action. Furthermore, some of the above arguments are simply false (The whole article depends on the press releases.). Just a few non-formal questions: What about KKR, sales of 9 bn US$ - did you try to verify? AVS (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Sure, simply read: a) the article, b) my above answers AVS (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but don't those fall under WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage? 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Tibetan prayer wheel ... AVS (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 19 June 2021 (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.

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. While notability is permanent, our standards for inclusion can change as can consensus. There is a consensus in this discussion that under the current NCORP standards that there is not sufficient sourcing available to justify an independent article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. It's abandoned and I think it won't get more cited or improved. Asketbouncer (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says it all: "Defunct" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. I restored a paragraph about the prosecution for fraud of two people related to the company. Now that the paragraph and its references have been restored, notability is clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is well sourced and interesting. Obviously, simply because a company has ceased to exist does not make it insignificant. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Studebaker, DeLorean Motor Company, etc., etc., are companies that have ceased to exist. Just a difference in degree is insufficient to make something completely not notable. The criminality has added to noteworthiness. Jay Jor (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When compared to the previous discussion about deleting this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizon Technologies, nothing really new has been added to a detailed discussion of the issue. The first time this article was nominated for deletion, a consensus was reached to keep the article. With changes as recent as 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, etc., it had not been abandoned. Even if it had, an article ceasing to change does not make it go from being notable to not being notable. Jay Jor (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the newly discovered news, none of them are in-depth. A company "known for one thing" is not notable.Webmaster862 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. In addition, none of the article references the fraud and subsequent convictions provides in-depth information on the company with Independent Content. In summary, not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 19 June 2021 (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.

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 redirect to Shipley Energy. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Convenience Store

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

Doesn't look like this meets WP:NCORP. Very small convenience store chain. It apparently had more locations at one time, but infobox says just one left now. The article hasn't been updated to match (still says it operated in 15 counties). Most of the article is unsourced, two of the three sources are DLs and probably didn't contribute to notability. The one working source does not mention subject. I get a timeout trying to access the website. Searching turns up a few newspaper articles on store closings. This seems to have been a minor operation of parent Shipley Energy, which itself is poorly sourced. There is some history that could be merged if it were cited; this should redirect instead for now (Shipley Energy has been has been tagged since 2013 and might not survive if it was AFD'ed). MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MB 02:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like it fails WP:GNG. I could be incorrect there but even then, this seems like WP:MILL and I'm not sure if it's worth keeping. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shipley Energy for now. Seems pretty clear there is insufficient coverage for a standalone article, and I don't see much worth merging. I agree with MB that Shipley Energy might also not survive AFD, but that bridge may be crossed at the appropriate time.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2021 (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.

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 23:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Resources

AfDs for this article:

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

Aware of the Prior AfD, and understand why it was a valid speedy keep, but I do not believe this company meets WP:ORG. The best source found via a BEFORE, which I'm not sure meets WP:RS, notes that the company formerly known as Pioneer: "is a classic small fry WA goldfields explorer with excellent management connections and a promising mix of gold, nickel and lithium assets." Nothing else found counters the "classic small fry" designation and I can find no significant, in depth coverage. Note: this is not the Dallas-based company with a similar name. Should this be kept, it probably needs moving to itsnew name. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ORG. I cannot find any sources other than share prices and a few one-sentence descriptions therein. There are a few stories out there about the Sinclair Caesium Mine but none go into detail about the company itself, and it does not WP:INHERIT notability from that. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources via a Proquest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers, just a brief, incidental mention in a 2003 The Age newspaper article, and a 2006 The Australian article. Given the entity delisted in the early 2000s if there were any notable articles this search should have found them. Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (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.

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kompany

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

Article fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Various WP:ADPROMO as well. Amigao (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move this dab page to this title. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the notable Austrian companies that operate on an international level and provide innovative technology in the financial sector. Previous editors deleted in the articel a lot of reliable sources which I had to restore with a lot of work in improving the contents (e.g. Austrian Computerwelt Magazine, der Standard Newspaper or German Payment and Banking which is one of the best independent Finance Blogs there). I would suggest to KEEP as part of WikiProject Austria and see how members from there agree on the notability aspect. In addition I am suspicious about the permanent deletion request by a user that got criticised recently a lot by the community because of vandalism and also is discussed to be blocked: User talk:Amigao. Anyway, I am personally very interested in anything going on around Austria, especially about modern culture here, and think that some of those things here need more international visibility. I wrote with Kompany my first english wiki article as I am also very interested in topics about changes in the financial world. Of course I am aware that an article about this company is a not a mainstream topic, but I did not think that this is a requirement for Wikipedia considering almost every company from lists like this one: List of microbreweries. Frottdog (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Frottdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – Seems as article got fixed to satisfy WP:NPOV and notability WP:ORGCRIT (after quick research it seems to be a worldwide operating business data search engines as also mentioned in the articles). It is also a non-public stock corporation and for this fact already legit as Wiki-Article. The provided sources are also reliable in Austria (renowned daily newspaper and magazine like Der_Standard / Trend_(magazine) and https://computerwelt.at/ SokratesLehrling (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — SokratesLehrling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Has significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do have my concerns about promotionalism, and a number of the sources are likely not reliable/indy, factoring in the non-interview parts of interview articles, I do believe that NORG is met, if not by a wide margin. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I made some improvements so the article could be judged on the merits of its info and sources, rather than poor formatting. Sourcing is poor, and doesn't demonstrate notability. Several sources are replicated from press releases. It may be WP:TOOSOON. If sourcing can be tightened and improved with more coverage, I'd switch to a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly "TOOSOON", doesn't demonstrate notability, PR releases, I think the 2 new SPAs who voted here should answer the obvious question about WP:COI (see WP:COIN Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Which sources are press releases? As far as I see it´s just one (crowdfundinsider) which undermines statements that are also mentioned in other articles that are clearly not press releases, or? Frottdog (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case where our naming rules, specifically about partial title matches, fall down. Surely far more people entering "Kompany" would be looking for information about Vincent rather than about this company? At the very least, if this is kept, we should move this to a qualified title and move the disambiguation page to this title. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single one of the references are either PR, name-drops in lists of no significance or based on announcements/interviews/quotation where all the information is provided by the company and there is no Independent Content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and we require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article as follows:
- Der Standard reference has a lot of information about cybersecurity and risks but when it comes to the topic company the reference relies entirely on quotations from the CEO and other boilerplate descriptions from the company. There is no Independent Content and it fails WP:ORGIND.
- WKO reference is a standard directory entre with information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- Payment & Banking reference is an advertorial for a poscast with an interview with the CEO. The lede is written in a neutral voice but it is clear that the information was provided by the company and indeed, there is a "slip-us" in the second last paragraph where the text reads as "*we* expect". Fails WP:ORGIND
- Computerwelt reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- Silicon Republic is a mention in a list of an article promoting Vienna for start-ups. It includes a short summary of the company which is no different than lots of other articles but no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Spotfolio is based on a PR announcement from the investors, connected source, fails WP:ORGIND
- TechEU reference is based on an this PR announcement from the company, fails [[WP:ORGIND]
- This reference simply shows the logo, no information on the company, all PR anyway. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- These Trent. https://www.trend.at/themen/100-beste-startups references] include the topic company at rank 26, 32 and 22 in a relatively unimportant top 100 list for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and includes a standard boilerplace photo and description of the comapany, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- FT annual list of Europe's fastest-growing companies shows the topic company at rank 544. It is a relatively unimportant list and position abd the reference does not provide any in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and the methodology disclosed that the ranking is also based on information/figures provided by the company (which is the information that is included in the article), fails ORGIND
- InsurTech reference is part of the topic company's sales assets, a case study written by the topic company and a consulting company, aimed at potential clients. Fails ORGIND.
- Fintech Times reference is an advertorial entirely based on an interview with the CEO and information provided by the company, no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Crowdfund Insider reference is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
- NewsHubAsia post is based on a press release identical article here but included a link to the press release on the topic company's blog, fails ORGIND
- Computerwelt's second reference is based on the topic company's announcement of the launch of the newest AML UBO discovery solution - powered by AI! The reference literally repeats paraphrases the announcement, add nothing, no Independent Content. Fails WP:ORGIND
- coingeek reference is based on a presentation given by the company founders. Fails WP:ORGIND

I've also tried to hunt down some analyst reports since the regtech sector is covered. I came across one on deliotte's website but the methodology revealed that it relied on information and figures provided by the company and the report didn't provide any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Perhaps another editor might locate some analyst reports but for now, this topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "there is no Independent Content" User:HighKing ??? Thank you for your effort back-checking the sources, but I think you are maybe a little overdoing :)... Sure, the company is not Apple and not of a huge importance for the mass, as the product is mainly in the B2B sector, but for people interested in technology and in finance/regulation (like me), it definitely is, as mass media coverage is rare in this branch afais. Also saying that there is "no independent content" even to articles where a journalist interviewed the CEO and had a closer look at the company, and the journalist also wrote his name under the article is the same, as if saying that the journalist of those (renowned) media did not do his job. This is quite a serious accusation taking the strict laws for independent media here in Austria/EU into consideration, especially about labeling requirements for allegedly paid content as you also accused all of the media houses covering the company. Further, please have a look at first sentence on Wikipedia:NIS. Don´t think that in the statements that were quoted here (that they got an investment) it is a problem taking a press release coverage, but if you want, maybe we can agree on this source by an established startup media which created a video interview about the investment?. However, I am somehow happy about the discussion as I learn here a lot!, but nevertheless I am quite surprised about the massive criticism. With this approach/benchmark you could instantly delete 80% of Wikipedia content with a programmable bot Frottdog (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Frottdog, your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of WP:NCORP guidelines. I used the capitalised term "Independent Content" in the context and meaning of its definition in WP:ORGIND which I included in my initial !vote above. So yes, an article where a journalist relies entirely on an interview with the CEO and background information provided by the company *and* without providing any of their own analysis/opinion/etc fails ORGIND. Nor am I saying the journalist didn't do their job - in fact I'd go so far as to say that the journalist did an excellent job. I'm sure that each quote was quoted and the descriptions were accurately and faithfully reproduced. You assume and imply that the journalist's job was to generate "Independent Content" but it isn't, their job is more likely to report "news" not to analyse or comment on it. Nor did I say it was paid content. The entire point of requiring "Independent Content" is to ensure that we move out of a topic company's "echo chamber" of interviews, quotations, announcements, reports, etc and look for independent content where a journalist/analyst provides their own analysis/opinion/etc on the company. This is not a criticism of the company - in fact the sheer volume of references available indicates a well-oiled and functioning marketing department. Instead (and because of the large budgets available to companies' marketing departments to generate "noise") it is simply the application of our own guidelines on establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please explain me in detail (honest request) why those sources do not count as you even admit that the journalist did an excellent job and why the benchmark is set that extremely high here. I do not get it where the problem is, if a journalist interviews a CEO on a relevant topic and also portrays the company to give the reader some context to what this company is doing (how should he get this information besides asking the company?! Would you assume that the CEO of a joint stock company lied to the journalist?). Having said that, I know and also read WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND, however, the criticised articles by you - those we are talking about - are "independent(✔) primary(✔) third-party(✔) source that are NOT(✔) self-published" like stated in WP:ORGIND. And also there is "significant coverage (✔) in multiple reliable secondary sources(✔) that are independent(✔) of the subject" as stated in WP:NCORP @ WP:ORGCRITE. I must say that in this case your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of those guidelines. Besides, yes, you stated above that the fintechtimes article is an advertorial (which would be paid content), and this is not the case after having another closer look on the article and also after checking the other used sources. --Frottdog (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Frottdog, no problems answering. I know I've said this before but please take a look again. Look at the definition in ORGIND. "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. Lets look at the article based on an interview with the CEO. The first question to be considered is: what is the source of the information and detail in each article - and the answer is either directly from quotations from the CEO or common descriptions provided by the company. The next question is: does the journalist offer any of their own opinion/analysis/etc - and the answer is No. That is not therefore Independent Content, the article has merely repeated information provided by sources connected to the company. Indeed, it may be the case that it is all factually true and correctly transcribed by the journalist. It is also the case that these articles may be used to support facts within the article. But they cannot be used to establish notability. The application of the definition of "Independent" is applied to a high and strict standard in NCORP for good reason - most companies aren't notable. Getting your CEO interviewed, or having a newspaper repeat a company announcement, doesn't establish notability to the standards required. If, for example, the journalist were to provide their own analysis or opinion on whatever is being said by the CEO, then we're closer to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. None of the articles that I say fail ORGIND contain Independent Content. The fact that you check the "independent" box above demonstrates to me that you fail to understand what "independent" encompasses as laid out in ORGIND. You cannot check "independent" without the article containing "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HighKing: I totally get your point, however I strongly disagree in this particular case with you. As said, using such an interpretation of NCORP standards for Wiki would immediately kill 90% of the articles here. Since when does a company need several extensive investigative portraits in top level media? Or, could you demonstrate a similar case how notability is granted at those levels? Also, please have a look at similar companies, e.g. even from the same category Vendors_of_proprietary_enterprise_search_software. Should this whole section including the listed companies be deleted? From my interpretation of NCORP: I would consider a company notable when several different journalist independently of each other spend their time to speak with a company and want to discover and showcase more about this company, because this company provides an important technology to prevent worldwide money laundering or improves the banking / finance / insurance sector with it.

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.

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 02:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yerishi (brand)

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

Blatant advertisement of a company. Unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also not find many sources, and moreover two that are used in the article and the single other one that I found which is not written in Armenian seem to all be copyvios of each other, or at least closely related. Using google translate, compare the first paragraph of this source, and this one and that one: All start with some variant of "Armenians all over the world are always able to stand out in different spheres, fashion is no exception." Apart from the sourcing/notability issue, the article is also in a terrible state and reads like a (bad) advertisement. Like "Yerishi continues its triumphal march of success." – that's not encyclopedic style by a long shot. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lord Peter has hit the nail on the head Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11 - upon actually looking at the article, there is nothing encyclopedic to salvage. This is one of the most blatant advertisements I've seen aside from those attempts at "available for $49.99 at foo.biz". Every single paragraph, every single sentence has a direct purpose in promoting the product, with the possible singular exception of "The founder and director of the brand is Irina Yeritsyan.". I would delete it myself right now if it weren't for this ongoing discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also add that there is no salvagable version in history to revert to. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 25 June 2021 (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.

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. Significant, independent coverage shown to exist. "No it's not" is not a strong argument against detailed evidence otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Bombay

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

Advertisement of a photography website founded by a non notable person Karishma Mehta. do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search shows an opinion article and something from Forbes about it, both of which are in the references here, I think. The rest is just news articles that uses content from them, and they all just look to be routine coverage that only just mentions that they shared the image or video first, and they're all not actually newsworthy per se to begin with; looks like cutting-edge wholesome "news" "stories" reached India too. It seems to be a social media page, but that's it. AdoTang (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All are the junk sources. 1друг (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant coverage in independent and reliable sources about the website, its development, and its popularity, per WP:WEBCRIT, that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Being the humans of Bombay (The Indian Express, 2014), Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page (The Better India, 2015), Her Parents Tried To Marry Her Off At 15, And She Said No. This Is Her Story. (MTV, 2015), From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016), Meet Karishma Mehta, the woman behind Humans of Bombay (Hindustan Times, 2016), Almost every photo has a common undertone of Mumbai: Karishma Mehta (Hindustan Times, 2016), Karishma Mehta, The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Facebook Page Gave A TEDx Talk About Her Failures At IIFT (India.com, 2017), How Humans of Bombay is helping a sex worker's daughter study at New York University (FirstPost, 2017), Karishma Mehta On How Humans Of Bombay Captures The Invincible Spirit Of The City (Verve, 2018), When the Humans of Bombay came to Chennai (The Hindu, 2018), Sidharth Shukla gets featured on Humans of Bombay, talks about his mother: ‘My mom was our rock’ (Hindustan Times, 2020), 82-yr-old gatekeeper of haunted Rajasthan village connects with his first love after 50 years. Viral story (India Today, 2021), This Bride Ditched The Lehenga & Wore a Pantsuit to Her Wedding, Humans of Bombay Shares Her Story (MSN/India.com, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the provided by User:Beccaynr are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please be more specific about why each source fails GNG? The first few I looked at seemed ok, but you might be more familiar with these news sources than I am. pburka (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. fails WP:ORG. Just a promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:WEB, This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia, and per WP:WEBCRIT, web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage [...], which may be why the related Humans of New York article exists. But it seems more relevant for this discussion that there are multiple, non-trivial published works independent of the website itself, as noted in my comment above, and per WP:INHERENTWEB, When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. To review sources per the applicable guideline, I offer the following source assessment table, with an emphasis on the significant and demonstrable effects of the website on culture, society, entertainment, etc:

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Being the humans of Bombay, (The Indian Express, 2014)	Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its themes, including social and political issues: "A case in point, their post of two men in an embrace with their quote: “Decriminalise Section 377”, after the Supreme Court, in a ruling in December 2013 upheld the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Their latest posts are themed around the elections."	✔ Yes
Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page, (The Better India, 2015)	Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its philanthropic work, including, "She conducted a Facebook campaign with the aim of raising funds for an organization called Kranti that helps the daughters of sex workers in Mumbai. While the aim was to collect Rs. 5 lakhs, Humans of Bombay ended up collecting Rs. 6.5 lakhs in just one day."	✔ Yes
Her Parents Tried To Marry Her Off At 15, And She Said No. This Is Her Story. (MTV, 2015)	Includes "On Wednesday, August 12, Humans of Bombay -- the Indian version of photographer Brandon Stanton’s famous Humans of New York blog — posted a striking pic of a young girl who’s speaking out against child marriage. [...] The post has since gone viral, gaining over 60K likes. People from across the world asked how they can make the girl’s dream of becoming an Indian police service officer a reality. Humans of Bombay reports that she's supported by Aangan, a child protection organization," and additional WP:SECONDARY context and commentary on the significance.	✔ Yes
From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016)	Discusses the increasing popularity of the website, a philanthropic effort to raise funds for a child with blood cancer ("In the first 30 minutes, a lakh was raised. Over the next few days, Rs 10.31 lakh was donated by strangers who wanted her to be able to ‘give her board exams and dance without feeling weak.’"), the development of a related book, and direct discussion of its influence on culture and society, e.g. "For instance, it was on the Humans of Bombay page that celebrity hair stylist Sapna Bhavnani opened up about her gang-rape. Around 88,000 people came out in support of the post and it was shared almost 9,000 times. The influence of the blog was felt when news media ran the story and gave other women the strength to share their own stories of abuse. Another story that captured hundreds of hearts was about a single mother who believed she had married the man of her dreams, but instead faced an abusive marriage and a terrifying escape from her husband," and "The blog made it possible to talk about taboo subjects, and has also allowed people to reach out to one another. For instance, posts about alcoholism or depression are met with support and helpline numbers to combat the illness."	✔ Yes
How Humans of Bombay is helping a sex worker's daughter study at New York University, (FirstPost, 2017)	This article opens with a mention of the impact of Humans of New York and states, "One such initiative from India is already getting recognition for their work. The similarly-named ‘Humans of Bombay’ has been following the same model as ‘Humans of New York’, by covering people from all walks of lives and inviting them to share their stories," and concludes with "It is amazing to see the power of social media and how initiatives like ‘Humans of Bombay’ have used their popularity to help real people in need."	✔ Yes
When the Humans of Bombay came to Chennai (The Hindu, 2018)	Discusses the ongoing development of the website, its popularity, and its stance within culture and society, i.e. "The page has an underlying theme of being inclusive — of people from every strata of society, of all ages and sexuality."	✔ Yes
Sidharth Shukla gets featured on Humans of Bombay, talks about his mother: ‘My mom was our rock’ (Hindustan Times, 2020)	~ This article begins "Actor and Bigg Boss 13 winner Sidharth Shukla got featured on Humans of Bombay. For a special post on International Women’s Day, he talked about his mother and how she has always supported the family," and includes his statement, which includes, "I have always believed in the concept of equality between men and women. And there’s nothing a woman can’t do which a man can in this day and age."	~ Partial
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}}.

These are not all of the sources available, and these are only English-language sources. Based on the popularity and significance of the website, it seems reasonable to assume that non-English sources also WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references provided here do not pass WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is clear WP:ORGIND, i.e. Independence of the author (or functional independence) and Independence of the content (or intellectual independence) are met, especially without any specific objections raised to any of the sources. In addition, there are WP:MULTSOURCES that are reliable, offer WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, including WP:ORGDEPTH; in addition to WP:GNG, the source assessment table helps show WP:ORG notability is sufficiently supported for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a major point for notability (besides the reliable condition of the sources, well detailed by Beccaynr) is that it's India's largest blog. "That ain't beanbag", as Gandhi's British opposition used to say. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the source is independent if you read those quotes. Smartly, it is been marked as discussion where only an owner of Humans of Bombay are providing news. Claims like India's largest blog is awkward and nowhere related to notability. 1друг (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The table is a summary overview, and a closer review of the sources can show that the table includes quotes from independent and reliable journalists, offering WP:SECONDARY context and commentary that support notability per multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Beccaynr's source analysis. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:46, 26 June 2021 (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.

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samvo Group

AfDs for this article:

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

No further reliable sources exist. Fails WP:corp “has received no or very little notice from independent sources.” Existing sources are little more than blog posts. Has not received coverage in multiple RELIABLE secondary sources that are independent of the subject (fails wp:orgcrite). Fails WP:oprigind. Article does not meet guidelines for WP:GNG. GhostDust (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a betting broker, with a history of WP:SPA WP:COI editing both before and after the previous AfD (which closed as no-consensus due to lack of participation, possibly would have been treated like an expired PROD nowadays?). The combination of listings, PR and blog items which serve as the article references (and are as they were at the first AfD) are insufficient, and searches on Samvo Group, SamvoBetBroker. etc. are not finding WP:RS coverage of the firm or of its apparent demise in 2017. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant news coverage. Google news has nothing on them. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think care needs to be taken when using search engines when assessing notability (WP:GOONOTE and WP:HITS), I found the Spiegel and SCMP articles (below) on the last page of my search results on Google News. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Eden, Scott (2014-06-01). "For World Cup, Betting Flows Through Banker-Turned-Bookie". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  This article is an extensive profile of Samvo. The article notes, "The name of the company, Samvo Entertainment Ltd., offers little insight into the business being conducted here, Bloomberg Pursuits will report in Summer 2014 issue. Samvo is a brokerage firm -- a bet brokerage firm -- whose clients are among the richest professional-sports-gambling syndicates in the world. ... Founded a decade ago by a former Hong Kong investment banker named Frank Chan, Samvo acts as a middleman."
2. Kelso, Paul (2012-04-13). "Police raid British bookmaker for third time amid German investigation into match-fixing". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes about Samvo: "A British-registered bookmaker has been searched three times by police in connection with the largest criminal match-fixing inquiry ever undertaken in Europe, Telegraph Sport can disclose." The article provides detailed discussion about the company's background.
3. Spapens, Toine (2021) [2017]. "Match-Fixing". In Nelen, Hans; Siegel, Dina (eds.). Contemporary Organized Crime: Developments, Challenges and Responses. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 138. ISBN 978-3-030-56591-6. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book notes: "Ante Sapina, one of the main suspects in the Bochum case, made a peculiar statement in court claiming that he had fixed matches for gambling company Samvo Entertainment Limited (Der Spiegel 2011). Samvo, based in London but owned by Hong Kong businessman and politician Shung Fai Chan, strongly denied Sapina's story, and no proof to substantiate it could be found. It did transpire, however, that one of Samvo's employees had noticed the predictive value of Sapina's bets and started to copy them for his personal benefit (Spapens 2012)."
  "Spapens 2012" refers to the source: Spapens, T. (2012). Prijs! The Hague: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Samvo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. With regard to subject-specific guidelines, the Bloomberg article is extensive and clearly satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. The Telegraph article does not go into as much detail, but still satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH and thus WP:ORGCRIT. I also consider Cunard's third source, this article from the SCMP, and this German article from the Spiegel significant and reliable sources — WP:ILLCON (which suggests that organisations ought not be considered notable only on the basis of sources covering its criminal conduct) does not apply, as all three discuss more than 'purely' the criminal conduct. The company, on the basis of these sources, passes WP:NCORP. I can nevertheless see why its Wikipedia article was AfDed, given its current state. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 June 2021 (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.

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. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tirotex

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

The notability of the company is not established anywhere in the article. Megaman en m (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news coverage available to pass this company for WP:NCORP. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose when searching the Russian name of the company, Тиротекс, you get 2,090 results on the news section of Google alone. The company has received 3 state awards (Order of the Red Banner of Labour, Order of the Republic and Order of Honor) and the article can be improved a lot by translating the Russian one (which only by taking a look at it, even without translating it, seems like a good and proper article that wouldn't get deleted in an AfD). The notability of a subject is not determined by what's in its article. Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also this article [36]. I please ask to the user that will close this AfD to do a quick research about the company, I believe they will find information that, added to what I've shown and the Russian Wikipedia article, can lead them not to close it as delete. Super Ψ Dro 07:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to also have had an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Transnistria (after the state called it to do so [37]) [38] (this article calls Tirotex "the biggest exporter of Transnistria") [39] [40] (article from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Transnistria). Super Ψ Dro 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be one of the notable enterprises in Transnistria, as indicated in the links provided by Super Dromaeosaurus.Anonimu (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2021 (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.

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 draftify to Draft:Leadtools. Considering the nature of the sources, my take is that the "delete" side overall made a stronger case. Listing out the tools and software used to produce results in an academic paper is standard practice, and it sets a very low bar for notability if citation in a journal is all that is needed. Nonetheless, there were also some paper resources (Charlotte Observer) that were offered up which are probably more substantial but that cover the main product, "Leadtools", rather than the company. As such, the compromise suggestion of bringing this to draft space for further revision and focus on the main product is the outcome that fulfills the largest number of concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Zero of the references provide in-depth, independent coverage of the company. [Note, I did not access the Chinese Journal of Medical Physics reference] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom a Non notable company which lacks indepth coverage. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has multiple patents, there are journal articles and reports that offer in-depth coverage, they work with the Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps the article could be improved but it is an established company with important contributions and should not be deleted.Techgirl49 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Techgirl49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Techgirl49: Having the government as a customer doesn't make a company notable. As WP:PATENTS says, noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nomination appears to have looked at the references and claim zero in depth coverage of the company there is insufficient evidence the nom. examined the FedBizOps 15 April 2009 carefully. While this covers only a company product in detail that is a significant aspect of a company. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: In what way do you think this provides in-depth coverage? It is an announcement of Veterans Affairs buying LEAD Technologies' PACS solution. See WP:ROUTINE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as currently written provides both for the LEAD Technologies company and the LEADTOOLS brand via LEADTOOLS, the latter being of more notability which is sustained as easier evidenced by links in books link above, noting InfoWorld 1 May 1995 for example. The nom. may be in pursuit of Techgirl49, having Draft:LEADTOOLS declined at AfC 3 June. Give sock work at LEADTOOLS their is cause for concern. But under it all I see a software brand that has sustained long term notability. I have used {{uw-coi}} directly asked Techgirl49 if she has a conflict of Interest with Lead Technologies and making her aware of Wikipedia declaration requirements if she has. I AGF that could be either way, but its sensible to directly ask the question. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I think there might be paid editing or at least COI but I have no evidence and have chosen to AGF. That isn't the reason for my nomination. While the company has been around a long time, and the InfoWorld article brought back fond memories as I used the API in VB way back in 1995, WP:ITSOLD doesn't cut it. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, product reviews can help establish notability of a product, and InfoWorld is an independent, reliable source. It would take more though, to show that either that specific product meets WP:NPRODUCT or the company meets WP:NCORP. I would want to see a book, or chapter in a book, written about the company, or secondary coverage in a national newspaper, or a paper in a scientific journal, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: I don't think I gave too much emphasis for the patents, I was just saying that they have them. I would disagree and think that having the government as a customer does make a company notable or at least validates their existence. I don't know what AGF means? I see you used their tools as far back as 1995! I use their tools as well and found them on a list when I googled and that led me down this rabbit hole. You used their tools over 25 years ago so you know they are legit and there are articles in journals about them. You clearly know all the rules and maybe I don't, but I have to ask if deleting this page would improve the knowledge base in Wikipedia or deteriorate it. And I believe the answer is that it would deteriorate. Request to improve it, certainly, But delete it? I still say no. Techgirl49 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... One can read many things but I notice WP:BADGER to Bludgeon the process here, even extending to user talk pages. I am minded WP:NPRODUCT is satisfied by LEADTOOLS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The coverage here is trivial and mostly press releases, and lacks the independence necessary to establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In order to have its own page, the company qualified as notable before now, and per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, nor does the subject need to have ongoing coverage to still be considered notable. Plus, current market (e.g. PDF SDK, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coil and Optical Character Recognition) research reports include the company and its product in their studies with the likes of other notable companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, IBM), and current journal articles still reference and study the company and its product. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consideration of the sources provided by Heartmusic678.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the lack of sourcing in the article, I couldn't find anything else on a search of mine. Fails WP:NCORP.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took some time digging to come to this opinion, but this is what I found. 1) Several of the references in the article seem to show notability. E.g., The Study of Medical Image Communication of DICOM Standard Based on LEADTOOLS - Chinese Journal of Medical Physics (1 ed.). 2007 and Chang, Chin-Liang (1997). Fuzzy-logic-based programming. Advances in Fuzzy Systems. 15. Singapore: World Scientific. 2) I found some additional references to the company and/or its software. E.g., Joseph M Hilbe (2007) ePrint 5 Professional Conversion Utility, The American Statistician, 61:2, 179-180, DOI: 10.1198/000313007X193490 3) The organization is notable and has had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities as shown by the number of references with studies found in Google Scholar. While on the surface it may seem that the reference of the organization or software in these scholarly articles is trivial, it is not. The results of these studies are directly dependent upon the technology used for the study. 4) Because the references are from an international audience further shows notability. 5) Noticing the company is based in Charlotte, NC, I searched the local major newspaper and found a couple articles. Unfortunately, Google newspaper search seems biased to recent events, and I was not able to find the same articles that I did when searching the newspaper's archive directly. Articles of notability, but gated: Charlotte Observer, November 16, 1992, pg. 36 and Charlotte Observer, February 10, 2011, pg. A8 Trusty route (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the reasons including the sources provided by Trusty route above have anything to do with the actual criteria used to establish notability. The guideline is WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also, saying that the organization is notable because it had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities is synthesis, none of those scholarly articles says that. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, per review of available sources, including presented at this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to LEAD Tools. The papers found and sources demonstrate notability of the technology. I didn't see a LEAD Tools page, so maybe that's a solution? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent coverage available. It fails GNG and NCORP, misses CORPDEPTH and may have COI issues too. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pipsally (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep addtl citations, content could be added to expand page but not necessary. Active since 2011 with updates over the years. The citations currently on the page do meet the minimum requirements for WP:SIGCOV MadMadder (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For four of the editors that have !voted 'keep', this is the first and only deletion discussion that they have participated in. Read into that what you will. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Curb Safe Charmer you should be looking at sources and notability such as the journal articles, book coverage and reports as well as the long term notability of the company/products. As Djm-leighpark pointed out, there seems to be WP:BADGER to Bludgeon going on here. MadMadder (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current research reports do include the company and its products. Insufficient evidence that this page should be deleted 75.164.80.135 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — 75.164.80.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For those Keep !voters that believe that there are papers and sources which demonstrate notability, please post the best two of three links below for analysis. Be aware, each reference must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. If you can find two references that meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Leadtools". I do not see significant coverage of the company anywhere, but sources like this (and those compiled above by talk) indicate to me that the product is being discussed. Searching for "Leadtools" brings up a few more sources like this from SD Times; arguably still sparse but enough imo. If not move, then delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the move to Leadtools as mentioned above. Happy to change my vote officially if that matters. Or draft up a page if that is helpful, I am not sure how this process would work. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Leadtools page. I changed my vote because the toolkit is a significant part of research per articles (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56224-7_14; [41]; [42]) mentioned in this discussion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Leadtools for now. I came here with the intent of closing this discussion, and was inclined to close as delete, discounting the !votes of low-participation editors coming into this discussion. Empirically, the 1992 Charlotte Observer piece is promising (though just local reporting at that time), and Leadtools gets decent numbers of Google Books and Google News hits, giving me the impression that this is a potentially notable topic. However, these are not in the article at this time, so I think it needs to go to draft to see if there is depth to that content. I would suggest that if moved to draft, some consensus-based process be required before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Thanks for that suggestion. As nominator, I would support draftification to a title about the company's main product, rather than about the company. I am unconvinced by any arguments put forward by others about the notability of the company and I think the longstanding editors that have participated in the AfD agree. The coverage that does exist, as you say, is about the product. Therefore the article would need to be re-worked in draft space to change its focus. The other reason for draftification is that there has been a long history of undisclosed paid editing on this article, right from its creation, and I believe that continues today. I believe there is a sophisticated paid sockfarm in operation here and we await the outcome of that investigation. COI is a valid reason for draftification. In the move to draft space the history, two AfDs and notes re paid editing will accompany it so extra scrutiny will be required by any AfC reviewer minded to accept the reworked article into mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that comment and my participation in this AFD I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heartmusic678 and at least note I am not mentioned there. I object draftication but accept I need to take account of any decision here. I do not accept going via AfC, while I respect their role I have my reasons, but will accept a DRV review if required. I do not have nor seek WP:AUTOCONFIRM rights so any re-entry by me has to go via NPP. I never like to TNT because any history of COI editing is made invisible, and the job of marketing is in general to dress pig rear output as juicy sausages. Instead I prefer to WP:STUBIFY and rebuild, per Rosemay Leith, though accept I may have dishonoured a genuine NEWBIE in going too far, @BD2412 may present Leith to DRV if necessary. If their is a professional sock farm in use they might have the nous to back off if it get draftified, unless their being paid by LEADTOOLS opposition. Please note the brand is LEADTOOLS (in caps) as far as I am aware. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand most of the comments above. But it sounds like there is generally support for a LEADTOOLS page or draft which is what I voted for. Did I do something incorrect in my voting here? Is there something I can do better? I also commented on the investigation listed above. Thank you! FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 no consensus. Some of the delete comments only cited a policy while giving no further analysis, but there is substantial disagreement as to whether the sourcing is significantly in-depth and on the topic of the company. My role as an AFD closer isn't to determine which side is "right", but to establish whether there is merit to each side and gauge the level of support for each side. There is some merit to the delete side. Whether coverage of a company's products counts as coverage of the company, or whether standard news stories about finances count as significant coverage beyond being news, is debatable. The keep side also has merit to their argument since the coverage is at the very least related to the company and non-trivial. I therefore see no consensus for deletion here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueVine

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources in the article it appears to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I’m in agreement with Scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to WP:NCORP, the vast majority of these sources are not sufficiently independent or reliable, and are analogous to marketing materials published by secondary sources. If this is all there is to go off of, then I'm not seeing a pass. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article creator here. The article meets WP:NCORP. Per a direct reading of that guideline, there is "verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization." The entire article is based on independent, reliable sources. Forbes, Venturebeat, TechCrunch, and various business journals are reliable sources that covered the company, including international coverage in Globes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Per WP:ORGCRITE (and a direct application of WP:SIRS), business journals and blogs are not sufficiently independent or reliable as primary sources, especially if they are the only sources that exist. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa: I never include blogs in any of my articles unless it’s for something very non-controversial, but there are none here. If you don’t think business journals should be used as sources, you should start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. They are used in thousands of articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is routine coverage that WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There is no WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. Reference 6 is the first reference being close to secondary source and it fails WP:ORGIND as a interview with the founder. Ref, 7, 8 and 9 is monies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Ref 10 is a passing mention, Ref 11 is routine coverage of them expanding. It is primary and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 12 and 13 fail WP:ORGIND. Ref 15 and 16 are Non-RS as Forbes contributors. Ref 17 is a fail as well. It is all routine coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I must object to that interpretation of my comment. I have no issue with any of the sources being used in articles. The guidelines I'm referencing simply dictate that they cannot be relied upon alone to verify notability. Above this comment, scope_creep has provided a more in-depth analysis to this end. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa: Nuance is often hard on online pages, but you said the sources were blogs and they’re not. I apologize if I misinterpreted you otherwise. Please feel free to revisit your vote now that I found additional sources that clearly meet WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) whereby *each source* contains deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) also contains "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comnent More coverage added. Please consider WP:BEFORE when nominating and voting, to be respectful of other editors’ time. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. El-Bawab, Nadine (2021-04-30). "Bluevine Business Checking review: Earn 1% APY on your balance". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes: "The Bluevine Business Checking Account is a great option for small businesses because of its limited fees, and it accrues interest on your balance up to $100,000. This account is the only one on Select’s list of best business checking accounts that yields interest on your balance."
  The article has an advertiser disclosure: "Select works hard to get you the most reliable information to help you take control of your money. These efforts are supported by an affiliate program, and we may receive a commission from advertising partners. This commission does not influence the opinions, recommendations or placement of any products on our site. Our editorial staff remains independent; opinions expressed here have not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by any third party. ... These relationships do not impact editorial decisions or limit Select's coverage, which is held to the highest journalistic standards."
2. Payne, Kevin; Foreman, Daphne (2021-05-21). "BlueVine Business Checking Review". Forbes Advisor. Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes, "Since BlueVine only offers a single business checking account, you may need accounts at multiple banks to cover all of your business needs. Having all of your bank accounts under one roof is more convenient and may even come with some relationship benefits for opening multiple accounts. That said, with all of its perks and lack of fees, BlueVine Business Checking might be worth the inconvenience." The review discusses Bluevine's other products.
  The article has an editorial note: "Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations." According to https://www.forbes.com/advisor/about-us/, "The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. Our reviews and 'best' rankings are created using strict, published methodologies and are driven solely by the editorial team in concert with industry professionals as needed. Content is informed by in-depth research, independent data gathering, analysis and expert insights." It further notes, "Journalistic integrity is the key to our success. To support our reporting work, our business team (a group separate from our editorial team) reviews our content after it’s written and identifies potential advertising opportunities. That team then secures compensation from some of the brands identified in our content."
3. Vissers, Jason (2021-06-08). "BlueVine Review". Merchant Maverick. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The review notes: "BlueVine, an online lending service, was founded in 2013 after the founder watched his father, a physical therapist, struggle with inconsistent cash flow due to slow payouts by insurance companies. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that BlueVine offers services intended to help merchants overcome cash flow problems. ... BlueVine’s fees can get a little expensive, but despite the potential for high costs, BlueVine offers fantastic and transparent services that are easy to qualify for, convenient, and useful for merchants who struggle with cash flow problems."
4. Feldman, Amy (2016-01-20). "Startup BlueVine Nabs $40 Million As Once-Stodgy Invoice Financing Becomes The Latest Tech Craze". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article from a Forbes staff writer notes, "BlueVine offers a maximum credit line of $250,000 (up from a previous $150,000), with simple pricing. A big advantage of BlueVine over a traditional factor is that you can choose which invoices you want paid early, and once you have enough cash you can ignore the site."
5. Levy, Ari (2016-04-26). "Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article includes quotes from the company's CEO but there is sufficient independently reported content to contribute to notability. The article notes: "BlueVine, founded by Lifshitz in 2013 and based in Palo Alto, got its start in the obscure corner of finance called factoring, where businesses sell their accounts receivable at a discount to a creditor so they can have cash on hand to run operations. The lender makes money off the spread between the discount and the actual value of the invoice, which typically gets paid in 30 to 60 days."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BlueVine to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep. It does have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but the article needs to incorporate more of the relevant information from those sources. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I’m open to suggestions for information to add that’s missing. I thought I touched all the bases. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've covered all the bases now. I've changed my comment to keep. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I plan to comment at some point later today, on these supposed independent coverage refs. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Sources above Cunard has not analysed the sources against the appropriate SNG for companies/organizations, which is WP:NCORP. Here's a review of the references against NCORP requirements which apply stricter adherence to criteria than vanilla GNG. Each reference must meet both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND

CNBC reference is a review of a product but the topic of the article is the company. There is no in-depth information provided about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Forbes reference is the same. Its a review of a product and has no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
MerchantMaverick reference is also a review of a product but includes some information on the company. Unfortunately its just a repetition of the information found at the "Why I Started BlueVine" page from the company website. Same description also pops up in other places such as the company's LinkedIn page. There is no other information provided on the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Forbes article is based on an quotations/interview with the CEO. Cunard has highlighted the only sentence in the article that isn't directly attributed but which can be found in Press Releases issued by the company. The absense of meaningful "Independent Content" means it fails WP:ORGIND
Second CNBC reference is the best of the lot but it has hardly any "Independent Content" with analysis/opinion/fact checking/investigation. Most of the potential "good bits" are attributed to sources related to the company and what's left are the odd sentence or two at most, fails WP:ORGIND

None of the references meet NCORP. I welcome other people's comment. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above sourcing analysis - I did a little more cleanup and also improved the sourcing even further. @HighKing:, can you clarify for us that you're saying that a company article shouldn't include product coverage? Understanding your rationale will help the closer decide how strongly to weigh your deletion argument. I addressed above how this meets WP:NCORP, by directly quoting from the guideline. If you'd like to have Inc, Forbes, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Businessweek changed to unreliable on the reliable sources noticeboard, please start a discussion there and ping me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I'm simply looking for sources that meet NCORP. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. But if the topic of an article is about a company, then we need to see references that provide in-depth information on the *company*. A product review reference would be useful for an article on the product. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to come up with similar argument and agree totally with HighKing. These review sites are not really independent, in the only sense that matters. Looking at [43] for example, in the source section, they list Bluevine and Trustpilot reviews as the sites they are source. Looking at one of the CNBC reviews at: [44]. It states on the review, Select’s editorial team independently created this content. Fair enough, it goes on to say that Click here to read our full advertiser disclosure. It states we affiliated with affiliate relationships with American Express, U.S. Bank, Discover, Credit One. So they in partnership with payment gateway providers. They are the industry. So they're reviews are not really independent either. scope_creep^Talk 22:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the page at [45] it states: Editorial Note: Forbes Advisor may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. They are not independent either. On the Bluevine site is states : supported more than 300,000 small businesses' On the review site, it states In 2020 and 2021, BlueVine supported more than 300,000 small businesses. So I think probably good chunks of it have been copy and pasted from Bluevines site. It is no suprise. scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup - none of the three sources you identified as a reason to vote delete are there anymore. They weren't necessary - other more reliable publications also covered the info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:NCORP. Your first reference fails WP:ORGIND. It is based on an interview with the ceo. Ref 2, routine funding annoucements explicitly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third references is based on comments from Eyal Lifshitz, which questions its independence. Ref 4 is routine funding. Ref 5 is a decentish ref but again the question of independence. Ref 6 and 7 are routine funding. Ref 8, 9, 10 are routine news fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 11 of a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a company making an announcement in a press release, and a government entity (in this case, the Government of Utah) issuing an official statement confirming the terms of a significant deal they struck with the company. Nonetheless, I removed the Utah announcement and replaced it with independent third party coverage of the deal. The sources should be all bulletproof now. I can offer a few other points about your selective interpretation of general notability guidelines. Multiple funding announcements in higher amounts mean that someone with deep pockets spent way more time than you and me to study the company, and its business model, and felt they were notable enough to invest significant money in them. So funding announcements are absolutely a sign of notability. There's an article about this if you'd like to learn more. Unicorn (finance). And while I understand the point you are trying to make about interviews, that they face less journalistic scrutiny, it actually depends on the publication, what is being sourced, and how the sourced content is phrased. If I use a CEO interview with a Forbes staffer as a source and make it clear in the article that the CEO is the source, that should meet most editors' standards of Wikipedia integrity. Lastly, all CEOs don't get interviewed - only the ones that the journalists consider notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closer - please note the lazy drive by nomination that spiraled out of control, including the shared AfD histories of the delete voters. This is a problem. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, when you can no longer find a reference that meets NCORP, just attack the people who show you why they fail NCORP. Brilliant. Yes, I hope the Closer notices. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that personal attack as a failure of WP:AGF. The article was reviewed at WP:NPP and after reviewing it, I nominated it. We will be commenting more on this when I get back from holiday. scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? Are you ganging up on me? Should I post info about your former ban for targeting? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly meets WP:NCORP with multiple reliable, independent, significant sources. Scopecreep is just grasping at straws, showing a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's Independent sources and neutrality policies. A publisher's disclosure of their editorial integrity policy and potential conflicts of interest is evidence that their reporting is NOT biased. That being said, even biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant coverage about what BlueVine does through reviews of its products is significant coverage about the company. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire source non-independent. The sources have enough independent reporting and analysis to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can point me to where this is stated in NCORP, we'll have to disagree. Coverage about what the products do isn't the same thing as coverage of the company. It is also why NCORP covers both separately, you can have an article where the topic is the company and you can have an article where the topic is the product. On occasion an article will cover both but none of the examples you've provided does so. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a weeks old account immediately participating in AfD and citing policies that take others months if not years to master. Could this be the “we” that Scopecreep mentions above? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest the FormalDude, who has done exactly 39 Afd's, has little understanding of what constitutes NCORP and is a clear drive by nomination. Timtempleton, I'm glad that your at least trying to understand what the problem is here. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD count is the standard for determining how much weight to assign a vote, you’re welcome to check mine as well. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection, but let's try to stay focused please. Your argument that the sources are somehow not independent is not at all right. Under WP:ORGCRIT, a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I'll break it down for you @Scope creep:

Source assessment table prepared by User:FormalDude
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes 1	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.	Article is about the founding of BlueVine and its business model.	✔ Yes
Forbes 2	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	WP:FORBES and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable.	Article is entirely about BlueVine and its investor funding.	✔ Yes
CNBC	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates.	✔ Yes
Business Insider	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:BI.	Article is entirely about BlueVine and the corporate interest surrounding such as company evaluation estimates.	? Unknown
Bloomberg Businessweek	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Bloomberg Businessweek is considered generally reliable for news and business topics (WP:RSP).	Mentions BlueVine seven times and significantly describes the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 1	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Source talks about the small business loans that BlueVine services.	✔ Yes
Wall Street Journal 2	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news (WP:RSP).	Source talks about how BlueVine offers small business loans during the pandemic.	✔ Yes
Deseret	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. Meets WP:NEUTRALSOURCE.	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news topics not related to the LDS church (WP:RSP).	Multiple mentions and paragraphs about BlueVine, including their opening of offices in the Western U.S.	✔ Yes
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}}.

—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through them since you clearly don't known what constitutes independence nor depth means.

Forbes 1 The article states So, I ask Lifshitz, could you team up with one of them? “Yes,” he says. Is that in the works? “I can’t comment on that. We know a lot of the guys at those companies. I think there are opportunities to cooperate.” That is not independent nor in-depth. There is no analysis. There is reporting from what the ceo says directly so it fails WP:ORGIND, as it is not independent from the organisation.

Forbes 2 This is an annoucement of funding news that explicitly fails WP:CORPDEPTH specifically {{Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement}} of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,
CNBC Seems to be 404
Business Insider, effectively non-RS.
Bloomberg Businessweek This is what it states (BlueVine and Cross River Bank were also among the program’s top ten lenders by application volume.) and Another borrower in Little Rock, Ark., received almost $2 million from Kabbage Inc. and BlueVine Capital Inc. for businesses that weren’t in good standing with the secretary of state That is a passing mention and is NOT indepth.
Wall Street Journal 1 BlueVine Raises $60 Million Series E for Small-Business Lending That is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Wall Street Journal 2 I can't see this one, but I'm assuming it another entry that fails either WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND or WP:SIRS. It is not even about the company suggesting BlueVine will be used as an example similar above.
Deseret Eyal Lifshitz, CEO and co-founder of BlueVine, said the new Utah office will support growth of the company’s business banking services. That is not independent and is an interview with the CEO. It fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not providing any justification other than sighting WP:CORPDEPTH. I fail to see how any of these sources' coverage does not "extend well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." You are incorrectly labeling substantial business journalism as Churnalism, and are completely misrepresenting the coverage as well. For example, Bloomberg Businessweek is an in-depth article on BlueVine:

The fintech companies arranged just 15% of PPP loans overall. They include Kabbage and BlueVine Capital, as well as banks and nonbank lenders that work with such companies, including Cross River Bank, Celtic Bank, and Ready Capital.
Another borrower in Little Rock, Ark., received almost $2 million from Kabbage Inc. and BlueVine Capital Inc. for businesses that weren’t in good standing with the secretary of state.
Kabbage, which had never before processed an SBA loan, surpassed megabanks to become the second-biggest PPP lender by application volume, approving funds for almost 300,000 businesses. (BlueVine and Cross River Bank were also among the program’s top ten lenders by application volume.)
One whose application was processed by BlueVine received SBA approval so fast the person wondered if something had gone wrong.
A representative for BlueVine says that the servicer rejected as many as 9% of the applications it received because of suspected fraud and that fewer than 2% of the loans receiving funding have raised concerns.
BlueVine “conducted advanced fraud-prevention techniques” and tried to “safely support” as many business owners as it could. That “included taking on a potentially larger risk of fraud” than faced by lenders prioritizing only existing customers, a spokesperson says in response to questions.
A spokesperson for Ready Capital says it “implemented due diligence measures and complied with SBA directives to expeditiously provide relief to small businesses.” Kabbage and BlueVine also say they took steps to scrutinize applications.

Furthermore, the CNBC article is not 404, it has been archived numerous times, most recently on 27 June, 2021. It also offers in-depth coverage and certainly meets WP:ORGIND.

Neither of the Forbes and WSJ sources, nor of any the others for that matter, are merely passing mentions or trivial subjects. They all go well into describing and discussing in-depth topics about BlueVine. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand NCORP nor seem to care in enforcing it. I don't think you know in-depth means since both the articles you write are fairly lightweight that don't involve any heavy-weight analysis, nor the fact that you have barely taken part in Afd. In-depth doesn't means a 1400 word article, in means 10, 20, 30+ pages of detailed analysis. Nothing that has been offered here is in-depth, they are merely small articles around 1400 words that picks all their information from either the company news portal or the CEO or their spokesman. The CNBC article which I couldn't find states: The latest example: Citigroup just invested in online lender BlueVine. Three months after closing a $40 million financing round led by Menlo Ventures, BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com his company is bringing in additional capital from Citi Ventures, the strategic investing arm of the New York banking giant. Terms aren’t being disclosed. This is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it comes straight from the company. The company hasn't been about long enough for detailed analysis. All the information that is available funding and its operations which are effectively brand new. It is entirely non-notable. And the comments above says it all. They are true passing mentions in a compound news articles that doesn't have enough information on the company to create a full article. It is clear your going for no consensus result. In six months I will renominating if the references are in the same rank condition. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I'm fine to wait for further consensus. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC coverage comes up fine on my computer. It's confusing when you say you can't find it and then quote from it. If the closer also reads it, they'll see it uses Citigroup's financial backing of BlueVine as a springboard for an in-depth analysis of the company's history and business model. Exactly the sort of coverage we expect to demonstrate notability. The WSJ piece you also say you can't access is an analysis of the PPP fraud incident that involved BlueVine, and it included an interview with a BlueVine executive. Here's a snippet from the article: Hundreds of seemingly eligible borrowers of Bluevine Capital Inc., an online lender that facilitated more than 155,000 loans, had their personal bank accounts frozen after getting their PPP loans deposited there, said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. 155,000 PPP loans is notable. You assert that Business Insider isn't a reliable source, but that's not quite the truth. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says there's no consensus - the closer can see the discussion there. Even with that, the Business Insider piece is a long detailed description of the company, framed around the hiring of its new COO. There are no promotional or otherwise out of place claims that would cause anyone to doubt the reliability of the reporting, unless it was to try to support an increasingly unlikely delete vote. Common sense has to be considered, along with the context of the deletion nomination. In conclusion, the time and effort put into the sourcing analysis above shows that the sources are in-depth and reliable, clearly indicating that the company is notable and meets any reasonable reading and interpretation of WP:NCORP. This should be an easy keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, see the bit of that quote you've included which says "said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal". Can you explain to me who that meets WP:ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you have stated that said Bluevine executive Gil Rosenthal. So that fails WP:ORGIND as it a not independent of the organisation. It is an interview. The Business Insider reference has an image of the CEO on the opening para. It is no more independent than the one above and fails WP:SIRS, which was explicitly written to take cognizance of the fact that most startups provide interview style info, to reporters in the manner described above. The information is coming from the company, not the news reporter going out and finding the story. The whole cruz of it, is the question of independece. They are not independent. It seems to be how these trade reporting sites work. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've twisted yourselves into a forensics pretzel with your arguments, first claiming that a company's notability consideration should exclude product coverage, then trying to argue that sources are unreliable, despite community consensus, and then arguing that interviews are not good sources of info or evidence of notability, as if having an interview in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC is an everyday occurrence for executives. There aren't any better, more efficient ways for the news media to get background info on a private company than interviewing them. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, should Biden fire his press secretary and end his press briefings, which are essentially interviews and press releases wrapped up in a nice tidy package? Any reasonable person would conclude that the executives are on the radar of big media for interviews for the very reason that what they have to say is notable and of interest to readers. Per a direct quote from WP:ORGIND, A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. The coverage is by unrelated people, and the reporting is non-trivial and non-routine, and these publications' editorial standards do not appear to allow self-promotion or product placement, thus neatly satisfying the guideline. It still rankles me that one of the early delete votes above was based on claims that some sources were blogs, and when it was pointed out that there are no blogs, the person took offense, and dug in instead of changing or striking the vote. That was an early sign that this forum is not ideal for changing minds once people have voted (welcome to 2021). Lastly, the photo is of the COO, not the CEO, as it shows in both the source article's title and the photo caption, suggesting a somewhat hasty and cursory review of the sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, now if you can make those same rebuttals while pointing to the relevant sections in WP:NCORP, you might have a point. Both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND are pretty clear on the requirements. Part-quoting ORGIND is disingenuous especially when you leave out and ignore the requirement for "Independendence of the content". You also can't mix-and-match references to build a picture. Each and every reference used to establish notability must meet CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. Everytime you've pointed to a reference, it has been pointed out where that reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. You can rail and shout to the skies about the strictness of NCORP guidelines but that doesn't change them. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews as the source of information is the antithesis of independence in the domain of organisation reporting, in the context of notabilty here. All software companies, companies, fintech companies that are startups go to extraordinary length to ensure their intellectual property is protected and kept secret. The only stuff they publically report is the financials, everything you see in the these trade papers is coming from somebody in the company, unless there is some kind of scandal or they have made a huge breakthrough in something or they have been going for decades or something else like that; so for the most part, most of these sources are not independent. So even if it coming from the COO, its not independent, it fails ORGIND. Hiring news is routine news. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've tortured the poor closers enough. I can't get you to change your minds because you keep moving the goalposts, ignoring word for word readings of the guidelines in favor of your interpretations, and making up things to be proven right. For example, there's no hiring news here. Time to find another time sink. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No,we don't. There is no moving the goalposts. It is the reason that NCORP was created in the first place. Its the same thing we have been talking about since last summer, your inability to use sources that satisfy NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. However, as there is not consensus to keep, either, this article will be subject to renomination after a suitable period of time if it is not further improved with sources indicating the non-routine nature of the company's work. BD2412 T 05:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gülermak

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". The creator, User:Jpbowen, expanded this with more references, but sadly, the added references still seem to be problematic - they are from very niche websites and worse, read like press-releases and their rewrites (ref [46] is obviously written by the company itself ("What we do", etc.). I am afraid I still don't see what makes this company notable - it exists, it does business, and it has generated WP:ROUTINE coverage in form of press-releases and their reprints/rewrites. PS. A minor red flag: no article on Turkish Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is a well-established company founded in 1958 (63 years ago) that undertakes major construction projects internationally. There are multiple independent references to Gülermak in news articles (3,200 according to Google News), including with "Gülermak" in the title. The company is based in Turkey, where there is increasing press censorship and even Wikipedia has been blocked. Expecting the same level of press coverage compared to a western company is problematic and could even be construed as a form of censorship. WP:ROUTINE seems to apply to events rather than companies. Overall in the circumstances, I believe there are sufficient WP:ORGIND and WP:MULTSOURCES, including some in publications with their own Wikipedia entries, to warrant inclusion. A modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE would be good for a company that has been in existence for 63 years undertaking major construction projects around the world, including quite a few already on Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS aside, have you found any good references? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Let me reply in this case. The company has been mentioned several times on academic papers due to their works on excavation and tunnelling, and the company also became subject on several news due to their constructions and accidents (for example, this news is about Marşandiz train collision, and this says about employee salaries that didn't paid on a worksite operated by the company), but to be honest, I couldn't find a detailed coverage about the company (like, when this company founded, what did they do, etc.), other than their website (which is WP:PRIMARY indeed). After evaluating quality of search results - instead of quantity, I say probably keep, as the company is notable enough to get constant mentions on news and various academic papers.

As a footnote, there's enough amount of articles on Turkish and English Wikipedia which didn't translated to another language, and therefore I would consider it as a "yellow warning flag" instead of a red flag. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: Thank you. The issue is whether the sources pas WP:SIGCOV. You mention academic papers, but my review of those shows nothing beyond mentions in passing. Thank you for linking the two newspaper articles. The first one is very short and appears to be a rehash of a press release "...according to Gülermak,... the project on Gülermak's official website" and anyway it doesn't seem to be clearly about the company, but about some accident that involved something constructed by the company. The second concerns a controversy that involves the company, but also another company Çelikler İnşaat and the Ministry. If those are the best sources we have, I am afraid that's not enough for WP:NORG to be met, but I'd be happy to review additional sources found. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have included references to articles specifically on Gülermak and its projects from multiple sources in the article. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large and respectable construction company responsible for many major contracts such as the Golden Horn Metro Bridge. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this company has done anything except engage in routine business. Few passing mentions in Turkish media should not be enough for them to have a page on Wikipedia. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gülermak is covered in many articles in media internationally. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gülermak has been involved in constructing more than 175 km of underground tunnels and 80 underground stations, which I believe is not routine. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jpbowen, Isn't it? Seems like stuff that constructions companies do. Tunnels, roads, buildings, bridges, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For clarification, I meant the numbers are not routine above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jpbowen, I am afraid I still don't follow. What numbers? And what is your metric for judging whether they are routine or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gülermak's major works are typically large pieces of infrastructure which, by their nature, are unique designs which are run as a distinct project. This is the opposite of "routine". In any case, whether they are routine or not is irrelevant because WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasoning of Andrew convinces me. Just the linked construction projects illustrate the international notability of this company (cf. Pune Metro, Expressway S2 (Poland), Route 2020 (Dubai Metro)). Best, --ThT (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We require references that discuss the company in detail and which also provides opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Being associated with projects doesn't automatically denote notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are peer-reviewed publications on the company's activities, especially in tunnelling. There are also news reports on aspects such as salaries. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While the company has been involved in major construction projects, most of the sources only mention the company, and are not in detail as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added some further references, academic and Turkish news. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are now 32 references in this article, a little overkill. Can you post links here to the best WP:THREE references because from what I can see, you've simply added yet more references that rely on announcements, I can't see anything that meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are two news items on the company in Turkish newspapers and a peer-reviewed journal paper on the company's activities: 1. "Sinyalizasyona iki kez erteleme". BirGün (in Turkish). 15 December 2018. 2. "Sabiha Gökçen Havalimanı metro şantiyesinde işçilerin maaşı 2 aydır ödenmiyor!". İleri Haber (in Turkish). 28 January 2021. 3. Home, Lok (August 2016). "Hard rock TBM tunneling in challenging ground: Developments and lessons learned from the field". Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 57. Elsevier: 27–32. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.008. I don't believe that these rely on announcements. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither of the news article provides in-depth information *on the company*, the merely mention the company in passing. Neither even has a brief description of profile of the company. The first article reports problems with train signalling and says nothing about the company other that mentions in the name in relation to a Partnership and a project. Fails CORPDEPTH. The second article discusses another project and complaints that the workers had not been salaries for a period of time. It mentions the company but there's not even a general description and the article does not provide in-depth information on the company and also fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, the paper is a technically detailed paper discussing the challenges faced by creating tunnels through various substances and in particular discusses the Kargi Kizilirmak Hydroelectric Project in central Turkey where a tunnel was driven through a mountain range. There is no discussion of the topic company whatsoever, also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But I would ask the question, should we be deleting the 124th international contractor in the world, according to Engineering News-Record (ENR) in 2020 (see "The Top 250" (PDF). Engineering News-Record. No. 4. August 17, 2020. pp. 33–52.) at this stage of the article's life (started on 27 May 2021, just one month ago)? I suspect there is more suitable material in Turkish and not online that is difficult to access for a company like this that is based in Turkey. WP:PRESERVE would seem more appropriate at this stage rather than deletion before the article has had a chance to develop with editors who have more Turkish expertise, rather than deleting it out of hand now. Following WP:IMPERFECT, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." I would say, give this article a chance to develop with contributions from multiple editors before considering deletion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey, Jpbowen if the article isn't ready for mainspace as you seem to imply above, would you consider moving it to Drafts and work on it there? You can then submit it for review before it gets moved to mainspace. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        HighKing, WP:DRAFTification is always a reasonable alternative to deletion, and I am fine with such an outcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:FAILN and WP:PRESERVE I suggest to let WikiProject Companies help. Therefore I added {{portal|Companies}} and {{WikiProject Companies}}. Best, --ThT (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under WP:BEFORE:

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.

The article was created on 27 May 2021‎ and proposed for deletion on 4 June 2021‎, after only 8 days, so I do not believe this procedure was followed. Adding {{notability}} would have been more appropriate at this stage. Thus, I think the correct WP:AFD procedure under WP:BEFORE should be followed before a deletion process is considered again. I added {{portal|Turkey}} and {{WikiProject Turkey}} to attract more Turkish editors who may have better access to further references in the meantime. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a major company that has been in business for over 60 years, the article is well-sourced. I also agree with the above comment that not enough time was given to allow it to be improved. The article has been improved significantly since nomination, let's allow more time for editors to work on it without fear of it being deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (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.

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finco Services Inc

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

Unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is pretty vacuous promo blurb (we don't need to know board membership, patent applications, etc.!) and the sources are all primary. That said, there are a couple of articles in WSJ 1 2, the latter of which says the company has 2M customers, so might be more noteworthy than appears at first. There could be more sources to be found by searching with the trading name 'Current', but that's quite a tricky search term, of course. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives the AfD, it should be moved to 'Finco Services' without the 'Inc', per WP:NCCORP. Or perhaps it should be moved to 'Current (bank)' or some such instead? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "in the news" section of company's website shows plenty of coverage. Some articles are just mentions, but they have been the main focus of several CNBC and WSJ articles. JBchrch talk 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wall Street Journal, Current Joins Mobile-Banking Boom With $131 Million Tiger Global-Led Round, [47]]; 2. CNBC, Digital bank Current sees ‘insane’ growth during pandemic [48]; 3. CNBC Digital bank Current triples valuation in five months to $2.2 billion after Andreessen takes stake [49] Middleground1 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal is an announcement/PR about the company hence failed WP:ORGIND. And the other two references from CNBC are also the announcement/PR, failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comments and questions

Thank you sincerely for starting this discussion. A couple comments on the above comments, and this is not to at all to be contentious – more of a learning op for me and explanation of what was going on in my head.

I guess my first question is how this might not be neutral. I agree with the comment that listing its board members is dubious. I was on the fence. Ultimately, I decided that if the place is privately held and privately funded, and it’s also being run by venture capitalists, a researcher might want to know that. (Full disclosure – I did not research the venture cap firms, it just seemed like the right call to back up the privately funded thing).
As for sources, I was careful to check that the third-party sources weren’t just cribbing from the company’s own press releases. I think that Dunn and Bradstreet, CrunchBase, Bloomberg, the United States Patent Office and the Security and Exchange Commission are credible sources. As for Yahoo! Finance and Financial Letter – well, perhaps I should have investigated their credibility, but I seem to see them used a lot around Wikipedia.
As for moving it to a page that doesn’t have the “Inc” – all for that. Looking around the web, I couldn’t even get verification as to whether there was a period after the “c” … Moving it to “Current (bank)” is the best idea, but I didn’t think that a subsidiary (in this case Current) could have a page when a parent company (in this case Finco) doesn’t.
As for patents, I’d be up for removing it. My reason for including it was twofold: first, this company is apparently among the emerging group of “fintech” organizations, which to my understanding are a combination of financial services and software development -- and there should be a mention of how they are in the software arena; second, their patent pending is something I’ve never heard of before – individuals being able to make money from selling their personal data just as corporations have been selling for eons without giving customers a cut. I’ve heard debates about that, but never stumbled upon a patent application for something that does just that. So, it seemed valuable. Sidebar: it's really not out of the ordinary to mention the assets of a financial institution, including intellectual property.

Well, I didn’t set out to do a promo, I can really attest to that with complete honesty. Two days ago, I saw an ad for them on the NYC Subway and wondered who they were, looked them up on Wikipedia, and they weren’t here, and then I saw online that they have millions of users and half a billion dollars in capital. So, I figured I should investigate further and give them an article here. I have no idea if they are a credible (as in good or bad) organization, but they seem notable.

Should you choose to delete, that’s fine. If you don’t, I’ll continue working on it. But either way, please, if you will, let me know where the thinking I wrote out above was flawed. Maybe the article is horrible, but I want to learn where my decisions and logic was off. I want to contribute more here, and rely on feedback. Middleground1 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:PATENTS the patents can be used as a RS in the context of the invention they describe. They don't support the notability of the owner. CrunchBase is not a RS. Anybody can register a CB profile and publish unverified information. I recommend removing CB and adding TechCrunch [50] Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means: nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, there must be independent opinion/analysis etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either advertorial "profile" pieces which rely on interviews and information provided by the company or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has WSJ coverage here. You can't get any bigger coverage than WSJ. Peter303x (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We are also required to look at the content and NCORP guidelines requires that it meets certain criteria. An article that relies entirely on an announcement of funding and a short interview with Mr. Sopp and without providing any independent analysis/opinion fails to establish notability, regardless of which publication it features in. Every sentence in that article is attributed to either the company or to Mr. Sopp therefore it fails WP:ORGIND specifically. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:08, 19 June 2021 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshi Lhendup Films

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

aside from some passing mentions and interviews, there is nothing in depth about Lhendup or the film company BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable YouTube channel. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy. WP:NYOUTUBE is not vetted by community. Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~The only non-trivial coverage from what may qualify as a reliable source is the dailybhutan, and that's not sufficient for WP:GNG.~~ On second thought, relative to the context of the Bhutan market, the two articles from the BBS are probably sufficient in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Broadcasting Service (national broadcaster) is not reliable? Störm (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ohnoitsjamie. Störm (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough in English-language to pass WP:GNG, given the fact that Bhutan has a small media and most of the coverage is inaccessible as we don't know the local language (Dzongkha in this case). Featured in a radio station too. Störm (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeshi Lhendup Films is very famous and is our role model. I scanned magazine published in December 18 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZkPH7tnLUCjsS-whYz6LJHCEPf5bUoE/view), (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6J5XCE5GVe-M9GXETJvQXX-p40Ljz6w/view) Bhutan magazines are offline so please look into.
Delete First off, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which imposes a much stricter interpretation of guidelines, especially when it comes to "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). None of the references meet the higher standards required and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non-notable based on my research. Kolma8 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2021 (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.

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 Stubify. There is a clear consensus that this article needs to be shortened with promotional material removed. There is no consensus about whether or not the studio itself is notable and so a future (though preferably not immediate) re-nomination would be appropriate to see if consensus could be found at that time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOMOS Films

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

Blatant advert. Not even as "good" as WP:ADMASQ. Suffers from appalling WP:CITEKILL, which is broadly irrelevant since it is an advert anyway and should be deleted as such. Fails WP:NCORP I kmow I accepted this at AFC. I had hoped the community might improve it. The acceptance was borderline. It is unsual for me to AfD my own acceptasnces. Normally I remain neutral at AfD when I have acceopted a draft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Advert is a content argument, not a notability one. If notable, then that just means the article needs to be rewritten to meet neutrality standards, not deleted. The deletion argument you're choosing seems to be WP:NCORP, but haven't really addressed the sourcing itself in regards to how it doesn't meet that. And there does seem to be sources available discussing the subject studio, such as this, this, this, and this within Spanish language sources. I'm not voting just yet, but I would like a proper deletion argument to be made first before I decide. Silver seren^C 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify - Remove all after the lede paragraph. Wikipedia doesn't really have good procedures for dealing with advertising that gets into article space, and this AFD illustrates that problem, but further discussion of that problem belongs in a policy forum, and this is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment SOMOS Films is clearly an influential entity and one of the leading streaming platforms for Latin America. If things need to be rewritten to not seem like an advert, we can fix that. Does not call for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoDavidZellet (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but stubify I guess I will officially throw my vote out there. The subject of the studio definitely seems notable, based on available reliable sources. But the article is very promotional at the moment, so shortening it down to a single paragraph with the references I gave above and expanding from there would be the best option. Silver seren^C 21:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited - it may be that the studio has produced notable works but it doesn't appear to have resulted in the studio itself becoming notable. There's not a single reference that provides in-depth information on the company from an independent voice. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:INHERITED is meant to be used. Notability doesn't work downwards (such as a notable author doesn't mean all their works are notable), but it does work upwards in certain cases. If an author has written notable books, then the author is notable because of that. That's explicitly what the various WP:SNGs are about. In this case, extensive coverage of the company's works gives notability to the company itself as well. You should note that in INHERITED, the examples it gives of upward notability that don't count are a group a notable person was in and someone who has a notable relative. Those aren't the same thing as actual works made by a person/organization that forms the direct basis of notability itself. Silver seren^C 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there are four notability guidelines which are listed at WP:INHERITED where, in certain circumstances inherited notability is allowed. WP:NCORP is not one of those notability guidelines and it is incorrect to suggest that "extensive coverage of the company's works gives notability to the company itself as well". The WP:PRODUCT section of NCORP specifically states Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Somos Group apuesta por los largometrajes con Somos Films" [Somos Group bets on feature films with Somos Films]. Prensario Internacional. October 9, 2018.

So you mean sources like this, I presume? Silver seren^C 08:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per Silver seren.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HighKing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2021 (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.

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. The "delete" arguments are based on Wikipedia guidelines, while the "keep" ones aren't. For example, copies of publications existing in libraries do not make even those publications notable, let alone subjects one step away, such as the publishers of those publications. Likewise for the other "keep" reasons. JBW (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Global

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

Company doesn't pass WP:ORG; WP:GNG; was declined G7 because they have won an award. A bronze 'Stevie' (one of a very large number awarded) apart, there is zero notability on offer here. In the first 4 sources given in the article, the company isn't even mentioned in 3 of 'em... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE shows no coverage outside of the Stevie award and the coverage is not significant. JBchrch talk 15:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think company pass WP:ORG; WP:GNG (Examples of substantial coverage: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization)

List of released tutorials and their availability in libraries around the world: ^[1] (416 works in 526 publications in 1 language and 53,185 library holdings) For example: available in the F.D. Bluford Library ^[2], Arkansas Tech University ^[3], The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library ^[4] and “Cultural Globalization A Bibliography” Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies in Iran: ^[5] S0merkile (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I google subject's products (e.g. CultureQuest) - it looks like they used in university courses (in Additional References): One and Two Plus I found some tutorial references Also there are many small publishers on Wikipedia, for example Bento Books and Dunedin Academic Press Ftopay (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. P:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Pointing out that some of the products are listed in libraries is not one of the criteria for notability. Topic company fails our WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company received two more Stevie Awards in Education Category: Gold Stevie Award Winner and Bronze Stevie Award, I think that's ok, but the article needs improvement. EXPARiox (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:15, 25 June 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndiaBoy Media Group

[1] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/52052-geliyoo-ceo-su-onemli-gelismeleri-linkedin-den-paylasti.html

[2] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/services.html

[3] ttp://www.sosyalsosyal.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo-com-roportaj

[4] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/about.html

[5] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/blog_post_4.html

[6] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/53169-mozilla-5-0-compatible-geliyoobot-1-0-http-www-geliyoo-com.html

[7] ttp://www.haber7.com/internet/haber/1047133-turk-motoru-geliyoo-rss-servisini-yayina-aciti

[8] ttp://haber.gazetevatan.com/turk-yapimi-arama-motoru-geliyoo-aktif/550678/43/Gundem

[9] ttp://www.reklamazzi.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo.134298.htm

[10] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[11] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/propaganda-in-istanbul.html

[12] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[13] ttps://www.newsbreak.com/news/2248424580812/a-young-entrepreneur-who-believes-in-creating-a-space-for-himself-in-the-industry-anuj-pradhan

[14] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/331822015_Geliyoo_Web_Browser

[15] ttp://marketersmedia.com/geliyoo-com-announces-a-new-all-in-one-search-site/3587

[16] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[17] ttps://www.haberler.com/geliyoo/

[18] ttps://ipsnews.net/business/2021/04/18/4-awards-given-to-hakan-atabas-at-once-in-the-fields-of-blockchain-and-finance/

[19] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[20] ttp://www.habertorial.com/2012/11/21/turkiyenin-en-kapsamli-link-arsivi-gmoz-geliyoo/

[21] ttps://clutch.co/tr/web-developers/istanbul?page=1

[22] ttps://plex.page/Geliyoo

[23] ttps://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201701191026837454-yerli-arama-motoru-google-sonuc/

[24] ttps://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-tepki-gordu-2598805

[25] ttps://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bir-turkiye-hikayesi-10-yil-calistik-googlea-yerli-rakip-yaptik-dediler-altindan-bakin-ne-cikti-661817

[26] ttps://www.sabah.com.tr/teknokulis/haberler/2017/01/19/bakanliktan-beklenen-geliyoo-arama-motoru-aciklamasi

[27] ttps://www.milliyet.com.tr/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-2380016

[28] ttps://www.hurriyet.com.tr/teknoloji/iste-yerli-arama-motorumuz-geliyoo-40338705

[29] "How ClearTax Is Transforming To A Full-stack Fintech Player". Forbes India. Retrieved 2021-05-09.

[:2-30] Catherine, Shu (June 24, 2014). "YC-Backed ClearTax Tackles India's Fast Growing Online Tax Filing Market". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2021-05-07.

[31] Kochar, Ritu (2016-05-26). "An Indian Startup That Has Wooed Both Sequoia Capital And Founders Fund". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2021-05-07.

[32] {{cite news|https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/how-simple-and-effective-is-the-cleartax-e-filing-app/article29030045.ece

[33] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/flipkart-partners-with-cleartax-to-simplify-financial-processes-for-sellers/articleshow/70129817.cms

[34] ttps://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/e-portals-make-filing-income-tax-returns-easier-2891365/

[35] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/5-more-income-tax-returns-filed-this-year/articleshow/80231571.cms

[36] ttps://cleartax.in/you

[37] ttps://pitchbook.com/newsletter/cleartax-files-away-12m-series-a-investment

[38] ttp://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2008181209/

[39] ttp://www.library.ncat.edu/dbm/dbi

[40] ttps://libguides.atu.edu/HR/videos

[41] ttps://www.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/uclib/html/featurelist/uceduhb.html

[42] ttp://www.ihcs.ac.ir/grids/168/109/filesFolder/ghanbari/CULTURAL%20GLOBAL%20BOOKS%20%20JOURNAL% 20ARTICLES.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]