Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caphadouk (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 9 February 2022 (→Companies deletion: page deleted already, removing from list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


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 delete. Sandstein 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Vision

Kerala Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referenceless and not notable Greatder (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 17 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BNI (organization)

BNI (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable marketing/sales company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage consists of paid pr. Ivan Misner may be notable for his work in sales/marketing but his company/franchise is certainly not. Jared Duckett (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 16 February 2022 (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 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EconomicCalendar.com

EconomicCalendar.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website, fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is directory based/primary. Nothing significant. Jared Duckett (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2022 (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 01:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finance Magnates

Finance Magnates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable PR magazine. Most of their articles are basically press releases by different companies. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Jared Duckett (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 16 February 2022 (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 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeRuosi Nut

DeRuosi Nut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP Source are minor mentions or not independent. Lack of in-depth coverage in RS. MB 20:56, 8 February 2022 (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 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Controls

Cylon Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage appears limited to primary sourcing or trivial articles on acquisitions, etc. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Husky Injection Molding Systems

Husky Injection Molding Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of the sources added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 16 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weidmüller

Weidmüller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV, sources cited are not independent, routine business announcements or commercial blurbs. The one exception is an article in Network World about their online sales system, but that does not suffice to establish notablility. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm not responding because I was pinged - this was on my list of AfD topics in any case.`
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the Keep !voters above have returned with any references and I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:49, 7 March 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harvin

Henry Harvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical article which looks well-sourced at first, but which is rather problematic. The sources seem to be added randomly to sentences, e.g. the line about "Henry Harvin became first Educational Technology Company that provided cources on Agile and Bitcoin" is sourced to two links which don't mention this fact at all. All the sources, and most of what I can find online, are of the "5 companies which offer the best courses on subject X" type with texts clearly supplied by the company (and probably paid for inclusion in the "article" as well), not sources about the company written from a neutral or journalistic perspective. These kind of articles really are a plague and we should probably put a lot of these sources simply on the blacklist, but until then deleting them one by one is the way to go. Fram (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (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 02:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opontia

Opontia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2021 startup. 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. All we have are the current sources which seem limited to press releases and their rewrites about company securing funding and doing some investments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This a copy-and-paste text from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination) --Geysirhead (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read both carefully you'll see it isn't a copy and paste. But so what even if it was? For other editors, just be aware that Geysirhead is bludgeoning the AfD at BeWelcome, edit warring (and was blocked less than a month ago for the same thing) at BeWelcome, and now stalking and harassing me for the temerity of !voting to delete an article (that this person never edited before but suddenly is showing a deep interest) at AfD. Hmmmm .. something strange here. HighKing++ 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting comments (look their contributions) without researching is not ok. Please, provide some proof of your research on Opontia. And please discuss the arguments of Caphadouk and Adil Faouzi in a reasonable manner. Then, we can be in good faith again. Thank you in advance.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a pretty petty and absurd comment. If you bothered to check my contributions properly you'll see I always do my research and read all the references and search for more and often provide a breakdown of every reference and the reasons why I believe it fails NCORP. If you genuinely were commenting in good faith you'd already know that. If you wish, go ahead and open an ANI but comments like this at an AfD (and the ones on my Talk page) are not only irrelevant but disruptive. HighKing++ 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: current citations are good for notability, although some news are about fundraising, most contain also info about the company and are in-depth. Chelokabob (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The volume of references is largely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability so long as there exists a minimum two that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter if there's 1,000 references and they're all regurgitated press releases or company announcements. Also for the sake of argument lets assume (unless an obvious blog or something) that references appear in "reliable" sources - editors trying to argue that an article in the NYT or TechCrunch must automatically confer notability on the topic company are mistaken. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet the criteria - each reference must contain in-depth information on the topic company and also contain "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet NCORP as follows:
For those saying that references exist that meet the criteria, please provide links to WP:THREE references which you believe meet the criteria and a short explanation on why (or in the alternative, why the reasoning above is incorrect). HighKing++ 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the toughtful analysis. I hope the closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of source quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion of source quality, not quantity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looks like there is enough coverage to be notable. Regarding [1] and [2], editor before said they are based on interviews,  but if they are not interviews and they dont contain too much quotations, then they are acceptable. As far as I am aware, if the journalist writes a story based on an interview then it is acceptable as it is considered verified and researched. Many articles are about funding, but I found that they contain details about the company which make them in depth. I also don't agree with editor before that an article based on an announcement is not acceptable. It is acceptable as long as they didn't just post what the company press release provided, but added their own commentary and info, meaning it is vetted and researched to be accurate.  Also, the company is ranked #12 in top 50 Middle East companies by Forbes. Zeddedm (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company seems comparatively new, but judging from the references available and the acquisitions, it appears to pass NCORP. As far as the definition of secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY we have "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" which makes the references like Techcrunch and Reuters written by staffs of respective media secondary. So these are acceptable independent content and are definitely not primary sources. Only press releases and company produced contents aren't acceptable references as per WP:ORGIND. Although the article may need pruning as it mentions few unimportant events/facts like "Opontia buys and grows e-commerce brands in the CEEMEA (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)". Cirton (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2022 (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 Liberty Holdings Limited. Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)  no consensus. 2001:448A:6000:FD1B:CDB2:749D:A344:C24D (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANLIB

STANLIB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has only 1st party sources; I can find nothing but listings in Google, DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but how do we know that unless there are third-party reliable references? Any links? HighKing++ 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more than enough sources in GNews at least confirming they exist, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are numerous articles in the financial press about Stanlib. Given the declining quality of Google search results means that we need to prefix our searches. The fact that South African journalism is in crisis means that many sources are now paywalled. Here are some mainstream sources (IOL is not paywalled and despite recent issues with its journalism, the group dates back to the 1800s, and was a WP:RS when most of these articles were written. A search for •

“Stanlib iol” gives us numerous results including: from 2021 [3]. From 2009 [4]. From 2018 [5]. From 2004 [6]. From 2015 (Bloomberg) [7]. 2006: [8]. 2004: [9]. 2012:[10]. Here’s coverage from News24: [11]. I’m on a mobile, but there are literally dozens of articles in WP:RS demonstrating its notability. Park3r (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we merge content that is not properly sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is being disregarded here. The subject of the article is notable, regardless of the sourcing. I have added numerous citations above from WP:RS demonstrating notability. Once notability is demonstrated, the AFD process should end and other mechanisms used to address sourcing and other issues with the article. Also WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be borne in mind.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 22 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Manufacturing LLC

Riverside Manufacturing LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite my due diligence, this business fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Missvain (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2022 (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. And move Televisa-Univision Inc. back to this title. Sandstein 08:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TelevisaUnivision

TelevisaUnivision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary page. Televisa-Univision Inc. is the only topic as Televisa (i.e. "TelevisaUnivision (Mexico)") never changed their name [12]. All these links and moves surged upon the confusion of editors. Maybe Televisa-Univision Inc. needs to be moved back to this page. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:28, 7 February 2022 (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 The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candace (show)

Candace (show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable (WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oberoi Realty

Oberoi Realty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

failks ncorp: the reference are either routine notices or promotional DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 2022 (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 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BitOasis

BitOasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Possible WP:PROMO/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vimosure

Vimosure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overall looks and sounds like WP:promo. I don't really see why it would meet WP:GNG guidelines either. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DXDT Racing

DXDT Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Motor racing team doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- coverage is either WP:ROUTINE or does not discuss the team in depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to recent improvements in the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney I am trying to understand how is this even remotely close to a WP:GNG worthy source. A passing mention of DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + 2 sentences about Crowdstrike (unrelated to the AfD) + another quote farm + 1 sentence about DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + a sentence about Ryan Dalziel + quote farm. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your standards are higher than mine? Or more likely, mine are lower for non-BLP subjects. Although thin, there is enough secondary context about the subject to contribute to a short stub article should another worthy source be brought up. As it stands, nothing else appears to exist at this time hence why I'm likely not !voting to keep this. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With nothing else available, I have edited my !vote from neutral -> delete. It is indeed WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your constructive criticism and discussion of this page. Because this particular form of racing does not receive large amounts of exposure sometimes the only media covering this particular series are the ones I have already cited, as I know I cannot link to DXDT or Crowdstrike's own press releases. That is why Wikipedia has been incredibly helpful in increasing the footprint for this area of the sport and linking all the coverage in one place. With your helpful feedback, I have begun to add from additional sources including Honda, Mercedes Benz, Speedsport News, and Speedway Digest, as well as linking to other Wikipedia pages that include the team this page is about. I will continue to gather additional sources to meet your guidelines. Thanks again! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in the process of linking DXDT Racing to all of the articles they were previously mentioned in. There were many, so it is taking some time while I continue to update the page. Thank you for your patience! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has undergone a significant expansion since the last delete !vote, which requires reanalysis of the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - I have struck my delete !vote in light of the expansion of the article; although WP:NMOTORSPORT does not cover race teams at present, the team's results in GT World Challenge Americas indicates a good future WP:POTENTIAL for passing GNG. At the moment, it does not, with still only RACER providing anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage that isn't an official release (with even RACER being debatable, as seen above). Draftifying in my opinion is the correct solution here, allowing the creator to continue working on the article until a second piece of SIGCOV is found. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the improvements in the page I have changed from delete to neutral and hope that the improvements continue. Gusfriend (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (previously delete then neutral) - As the page has continued to improve I believe that it has reached the point that it satisfies the requirements to being kept.Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my delete above. Looking through the sourcing in the article as of now there still isn't much in the way of SIGNIFICANT coverage that is actually about the team (rather than the drivers, sponsors, etc), so I am not switiching to keep, just withdrawing my !vote (let's call it neutral). A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my !vote to send to draft in light of the nominator's withdrawal. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:04, 22 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Watches

AfDs for this article:
Arcadia Watches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG AND WP:NCORP. Gives the impression of advertising. The Banner talk 05:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 13 February 2022 (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 00:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

Cambridge Precision Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. UPE scope_creepTalk 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is PR. It reads like a press-release. Newspaper's everywhere takes the advertising dollar including El Pais. Once you get more experience you will be able to tell the difference. scope_creepTalk 18:48, 7 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like an obvious advertisement Uwsi (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2022 (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 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudian

Cloudian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; fails WP:CORPDEPTH (see arguments in WP:SERIESA). All sources are either or both of PR or routine announcements. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of additional content added in the past 24 hours.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 12 February 2022 (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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:01, 13 February 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Action Wrestling

AfDs for this article:
All Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All Action Wrestling

No references, and so does not satisfy the core content policy of verifiability. Does not explain how any of general notability, corporate notability, or sports notability are satisfied. This article was moved to draft space once by User:Discospinster as inadequately sourced, and moved back to article space with no improvement. A case could be made for A7, but a deletion discussion is a better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 23:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sokha Hotels

Sokha Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced microstub since 2015, with the only claim of significance being that it is the largest hotel chain in Cambodia. I'm not sure how to discern notability for this topic area, but the search results I've found in English aren't promising. There may be sources in the Khmer language, but no Khmer-language name or kmwiki article is given which could be searched. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs some RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudworks Entertainment

Cloudworks Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization which does not meet WP:NCORP The references in the article don't mention, let alone discuss the company at all and I can't find any further that do. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:06, 4 February 2022 (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 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trustroots

Trustroots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial mentions only for this, usually self generated content or in passing comparison to Couchsurfing.com in articles about the sharing economy. Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG Unbh (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Mostly gets passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a breakdown of why the references fail NCORP:
Happy to review any other references but I am unable to locate anything that meets NCORP. HighKing++ 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for having stopped copy-pasting boilerplate. This comment looks legit.--Geysirhead (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (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 10:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaptopMD

LaptopMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Daringsmith (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear advertisement for nn company.Vizjim (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2022 (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) 08:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifi Publications

Lifi Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel that this company doesn't have sufficient coverage for Wikipedia company guidelines. Glassesgalore123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article setting out the wares of a division of a firm which has no article in itself. This division appears to solicit authors' manuscripts: " a new venture by of DK Agencies in which we get your fiction novels published for the world to read" [13]. Passing mentions can be found in PR for publishing events, but not the detailed coverage of this firm/imprint itself; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Could only find passing mentions in coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree that it fails WP:CORP. Chelokabob (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2022 (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. WP:NCORP was not met. Reliably sourced content may be added to Citigroup if desired. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Scod18

You Scod18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 sources for acquisition of this company. Only one reuters source also for the acquisition. Search on google news brings the same stuff no notable article. Maybe merge with citigroup Greatder (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on whether there is any content that's worthwhile to merge would be helpful in ascertaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 24 February 2022 (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 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHB Cable TV

BHB Cable TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two dead primary reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 10 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Satellite Communications

Asianet Satellite Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One reference in one paragraph in one article. Other is not reachable and another just yellow page, notability or importance not proven. Update: A contributor has provided sufficient sources and I propose to keep the article. Greatder (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable, I support keep then. Greatder (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 17 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Networks

Siti Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one merger reference, notability or importance not proven. Greatder (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is one of the four major distribution companies in the Indian market since the inception of private broadcasting and there is abundant sourcing available for it. The state of an article is not relevant to whether a topic is notable, please consider searching before nominating an article for deletion. Here's a small sample of academic sources that have provided it with significant coverage.

  • Mishra, Shashi Shekhar; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2017). "Case Study 5". In Adhikari, Atanu; Roy, Sanjit Kumar (eds.). Strategic Marketing Cases in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing. pp. 61–78. ISBN 978-3-319-51545-8.
  • Panda, Brahmadev; Rao, P. H. (Jan 2012). "Corporate Restructuring: Demerging Impact". SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 9 (1). School of Communication and Management Studies: 8–9. SSRN 2782754.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  • Parthasarathi, V.; Amanullah, A.; Koshy, Susan (2016). "Digitalization as formalization: a view from below". International Journal of Digital Television. 9 (2). Intellect: 163–166. doi:10.1386/JDTV.7.2.155_1.
  • Liu, Chun; Jayakar, Krishna (2012). "The evolution of telecommunications policy-making: Comparative analysis of China and India". Telecommunications Policy. 36 (1). Elsevier: 19. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.11.016. ISSN 0308-5961.

Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Your sources look pretty reliable. I generally search the google news tab to find notability and since that tab was dry as well as the article, I raised the AfD. I don't know how to close it as keep though so I guess someone else will have to do that. Greatder (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DLR Group

DLR Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This corporate article has promotional issues and has successfully avoided scrutiny for so long. Most of the coverage about them are brief mentions or routine coverage like acquisitions etc. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, an in-depth coverage is required which is clearly lacking here. A WP:BEFORE search brought some mentions but again no in-depth coverage was found. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Also, looking at the history of this article, WP:TNT maybe applicable. Belkstein (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that DLR Group has very clear promotional issues. I can see a justification either way for WP:CORPDEPTH. On one hand, the page does seem to be poorly sourced, promotional, and there are not a ton of secondary sources out there. One the other, their work with UNL and other awards could justify the page being present on the site, it is treading a thin line however. I could support a WP:TNT but the page is so short that it wouldn't be worth the effort. I'll ping the major players since they know more about this topic than me.
@Freechild:, (original creator) assuming you're still active, do you have any comments?
@Flatlanderks:, you are the primary contributor.
@David notMD:, You've been involved as well.
Etriusus 05:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed a paragraph listing acquisitions of other companies, which had included six of ten refs; what is left has four refs, of which $1 and #2 are the DLR Group website. Ref #4 is a deadlink to an 2018 interview with the CEO, so that does not contribute to notability either. Are there no useful publications about a large company that has been in existance for more than 50 years? David notMD (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @David notMD:, the more I look, the more I find that there are sources out there. I am relatively baffled that the page has been mishandled into its current state. There are locations all over the US and have done a number of high profile projects. There appears to be enough for a substantially well written article. My best guess is that people were looking up "DLR Group Omaha" and ignoring the other 2 dozen cities they operate in. A 12 year old article shouldn't be in such a state however, I am partially open to a WP:TNT, (or a hard revert if a decent version exists) but don't think deletion is a good idea. (Also, We'd be redlinking a ton of pages by deleting this article)
    Here's just one source [[14]] listing a few projects. They apparently built these buildings: Kings County Superior Court and Pinnacle Bank Arena
    Strong Keep Etriusus 06:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Late October 2018 the article included a list of buildings and a list of office locations, all sourced to the DLR Group website as hyperlinks, and in my opinion rightfully removed soon after, as promotiona, not contributing to notability, and not being independent from the company. Have "high profile" projects been written about? This article needs a savior, but it is not going to be me (retired biochemist). David notMD (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I guess since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nebraska was just revived, it can be brought up there. If it wasn't for the fact I'm embarking on the insanity that will be QAnon's GA review, I'd take point on bringing this article to a serviceable condition. Perhaps afterwards? @Blaze Wolf:, would this be manageable for you or someone else in the project?
    @David notMD:, I don't disagree with the cut of information on your end, the article is a veritable mess. "The Journal of the American Institute of Architects" has ample information and I'm finding mentions on NBC as well. In regards to local sources, there is a plethora. If we can't get anyone to take up the page, then perhaps WP:TNT is the best option. I am worried about the rather large (95) redlinks we'd make from this. Etriusus 06:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Etriusus: I'd prefer if someone else handled it. I'd prefer to not handle AFDs that are outside my general area of interest because usually I don't know enough to be able to support or oppose the AfD. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I ultimately bit the bullet and have substantially expanded the page in an attempt to rescue it. It's not perfect and realistically needs more attention but this is my best job at a patchwork solution for the time being. The page passes WP:NOTE with flying colors and hopefully, someone else can pick this up now that this page has somewhat of a foundation.Etriusus 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Parsons (company)

Charles Parsons (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. This article was PRODed in January 2015 as "Fails WP:GNG, non-notable", and the prod contested with the comment "A quick google search indicates that a proper WP:BEFORE may show GNG". The commenter has not edited the article, and nobody else has added any fruits of "a quick google search" either. There has been a certain pressure of promotional editing, including an amazingly elaborate advertisement here, but no sources. I have googled, of course, but failed to come up with anything other than the company's own pages and other advertising, including advertising lightly masquerading as news, such as this. The two references that have been there all along certainly don't show notability. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 2 February 2022 (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. Consensus is that we don't want an article with the scope described by the title. A different question is whether to have an article about Amazon.com's services in Israel; anybody is free to create that and if needed to request undeletion of this content for this purpose. Sandstein 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping to Israel

Shipping to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Disguised brochure article. More of information note. Unsuitable for wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 11:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:NOTNEWS, written by spammer and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT is at the core of WP:NCORP, making this into a moving target and even a bit desperate or at the very least unclear and unsure. As if when throwing at this many things then maybe something would stick. It reinforces my previous observation: This AFD is crumbling under its total lack of merit. gidonb (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine whether a merge or rename is the best outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that nominator has submitted this article for speedy deletion and, after this request was declined, moved it to a weird name, then AfDd it the next minute? gidonb (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under these circumstances a procedural keep is in order. Then see what can be made of the article, following the rules. Then it can still be discussed. If you do work by the rules you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic for our discussion. gidonb (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: If you keep making false allegations like that against me, which is a form of personal attack, it is up to AN with you. You seem to be foaming at the mouth to keep this crap article, which is bit of a puzzlement since it is no more than an information note, two bits of news glued together and non-encyclopedic failing WP:NOTNEWS, and specific to one country. You also seem to trying to WP:BLUDGEON the whole argument, driving away other editors, instead of letting it flow freely, which is another reason to go to AN. scope_creepTalk 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I said is true. People can look this up themselves, as others did before me. I only just found out. Regarding more contributions by other editors: I'm in favor. This should not be about you or me. gidonb (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purely speaking on timing, not merit as I have not evaluated the content thororoughly: @Gidonb your facts are out of order here. @Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. There's no issue with doing so at all Star Mississippi 14:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep renamed the article prior to initiating the AfD. Right. That's EXACTLY what I said! I did not say that moving is forbidden. I said that a non-contributor (any) to an article moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. Next respondents are going to check the contents versus the title, as happened above. Any initiator of an AfD should give success and failure of an AfD a fair chance. AfDs are about letting the community decide on optimal solutions for the article in a collaborative spirit. Please do not make this more personal than the nominator already did. My comments are purely about the principle. I stand 100% behind my conclusion that, given the circumstances around this AfD, it is best to close in a procedural keep. Let people improve the text and title. Then nominate if still relevant. I do not decide on all that. Others do. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also said you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic which @Scope creep did not do. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure which of you is right, or wrong content wise, but accusing one another of doing something you didn't doesn't help a discussion. Star Mississippi 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of me, you are not supposed to make name changes during AFDs so the name (change) that several people mentioned is very problematic, refers to what we should not do AFTER the AfD has started. I stand 100% behind this statement and have proudly repeated it here moving it to a weird name, next minute nominating creates a problem as we cannot or should not move it back. I did not accuse anyone of anything. This is behavior that was assigned to me by someone else and clearly does not apply to me. I noted that this AfD has a problem baked in because of the sequence of events around the nomination: change into a weird title THEN nomination. I analyzed the problem and suggested a constructive solution. No single person can do better than that! gidonb (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now while I did not accuse anyone of anything, there were several false accusations against me here that are VERY annoying. I'll leave it that for now. gidonb (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I raised my eyebrows at the last-minute change of name, as it might be interpreted as an attempt to compromise the article before a deletion nomination. I asked Scope creep to explain this change but they do not appear to have done so. However, this wrinkle is insufficient reason for a procedural keep, and we should assess the article in the normal way. 'Amazon shipping to Israel' is too narrow a topic for a useful article. We might usefully have an article on Amazon's shipping operations worldwide, or possibly on Amazon's activities in Israel (although we don't have corresponding articles on Amazon's larger markets), but this article is too far from either of these to form a useful starting point. The current text cannot easily be merged into Amazon (company), which does not have geographical sections. None of the other articles in Template:Amazon appear to be a viable merge target, soo I favour delete, as the only remaining outcome. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is an Amazon service, shipping to Israel, so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all entirely based on company announcements with no "Independent Content". I agree with Oaktree's summary too - article is confusing as hell and TNT applies. HighKing++ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Strange title and RS doesn't support notabilit as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a complete disjoint between the title and the content. The original title was a bit clearer (and I don't think it should have been renamed prior to nomination!) although that title just makes the non-notability of the topic more obvious. The content seems... weird. Taken at face value it is a scattered set of facts that do not add up to a coherent or notable subject. It seems like we are being invited to join the dots but to what end? Even if I am right about that, I can't see exactly what narrative is being sketched here but I assume it falls foul of WP:SYNTH. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the name drama, which could be solved editorially, there is still no content that adds up to an encyclopedia article here. Without that, no amount of fixing will address the issue. There were shipping issues to Israel. Maybe this could be covered within BDS Sanctions, but that doesn't even appear to be a fit nor is it a significant enough issue. Star Mississippi 22:54, 13 February 2022 (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. Some plausible sources were provided, but no clear consensus emerged on whether or not the sources are adequate to establish notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CARS24

CARS24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the references (including the Hindu Business Line, Financial Express and ET ones) in the article on this unlisted company are either interviews or funding/launch announcements. Unable to find any coverage independent and substantial enough for WP:NCORP through search engines, so bringing here. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to change to keep. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. Pilaz (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: will not consider Nikkei Asia Review articles as independent ones because, it is the same group which manages Nikkei 225 at Tokyo Stock Exchange where the SoftBank Group is listed, the primary investor of CARS24.(proof). It is quite evident that WP:COI is overlapping all over and intentionally the information related to SoftBank has been omitted in the page. We're witnessing extremely smart Wikipedia editing. -Hatchens (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about this interview by NYSE [19], would it be considered independent? (Softbank might owns some stocks listed in US too but not sure about this.) I think the argument goes too far. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lerdsuwa: NYSE doesn't operate or fund any media news portal (unlike Nikkei). They have there own in-house news dissemination process and their Youtube channel is just a part of it. But, if someone wants to quote and cite a youtube channel or a video, then one has to read WP:NOYT essay and take a call accordingly because there are many caveats. -Hatchens (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, volume of "coverage" often means an absense of quality references. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informat enough with no advertising unlike many currently written corp pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 2022-02-17T12:41:30 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed mine to Keep, if it really matters that mine is a comment or keep vote. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (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 with no prejudice against renomination. While a simple hatcount of !votes might indicate a "keep", several editors either did not make policy-based arguments in support of their view or made arguments that the extent of sourcing was unclear with respect to passing WP:NCORP. In the absence of a consensus on the state of sources presented, there is no consensus to keep nor delete. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GomSelMash

GomSelMash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, no RS, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Mikekohan (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion nomination is like a stupid joke. Maybe it's better to remove Mikekohan from Wikipedia?Ilyadante (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilyadan[reply]
    • This is the largest plant in the whole region. It's very funny to hear that nearlyevil665 didn't find anything about him, and Mikekohan couldn't think of anything better than to say that he doesn't know such a company and that the article is paid for. It's kind of surreal.Ilyadante (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)ilydadan[reply]
  • Comment: Ilyadante, the article's creator, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, as the article has non-trivial contributions from others (and is already listed here), I removed the G5 tag. This does not mean I don't think it should be deleted. As a technically INVOLVED user I will defer to the judgments of others. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can come to WP:ORG/CORP consensus rather than G5 since it doesn't seem clear cut enough to be deleted via that route
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: with both the fact that the AFD nom was the user's first edit ever, and the blocking of the first responder, it has the markings of a trainwreck. However I once again ask: Gomel is the second largest city in Belarus, and Gomselmash is the only article about a business currently in Category:Gomel. Should Wikipedia rather have 0 articles about businesses in this city? Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that heads up, I've tagged the sock. Star Mississippi 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand arguing keeping the article just because it happens to be the only business with a functional Wikipedia page in a certain given city. Since when is that a viable substitute for actual notability as per WP:NORG? Perhaps the better alternative is to create an article about a company based in Gomel satisfying WP:NORG, which I'm sure there are plenty of. nearlyevil665 07:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another article, or 10, or 20, would be ideal! My notion is that Gomselmash is indeed one of the companies in Gomel satisfying NORG, but since I comprehend no Slavic languages, let alone the Cyrillic alphabet, I admit that it's based on more circumstantial "evidence". Namely the fact that Gomselmash sponsored the city's football team for a long time, which in turn caused me to be familiar with it, a person who lives miles and miles away. How many other companies from Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine etc. have foreigners heard about? Not many, if any at all. So again, I personally can't present any actual sources about Gomselmash, but the nominator has not shown any sign of digging for sources either, nor has anyone else conducted a source analysis. The closest we have come is the discredited/blocked user mentioning some existing sources at various Slavic-language Wikipedias, sources not challenged by anyone yet. Claims of "no sources" are no better than WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          For what it's worth, I've conducted a WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability, and found nothing beyond routine business operation reporting. The sources in the Russian version of the article are all primary sources but one, which is a piece "Lukashenko denying the possibility of selling Gomselmash", which has no significant coverage of the subject, instead offering various quotes on why the privatization of state-owned property is a bad idea. The Belarussian article only has one primary source as a reference. I'd love to hear any countering arguments based on WP:NORG qualifying sources and I'd gladly reconsider my vote if presented with such. nearlyevil665 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Geschichte's arguments, and from a inclusionist's perspective. This is not a WP:BLP article where sources must verify no matter what. Perhaps the article could be tagged to add English sources and/or to verify existing references — DaxServer (t · c) 12:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the Russian page cites this article, in which Lukashenko's decision not to sell the company was apparently notable enough to make the news outside of the country. The sources of the Belorussian article are mostly the company's own website, but there is a fair bit of coverage in a couple Belorussian newspapers. Individually it is all routine but there does seem to be a good volume of it, and it indicate that the company is a significant player in its region. I don't have the time right now to look for further sources, but I will try to come back to this later and see if I can find anything else in Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2022 (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. None of the those who argued for keeping the article were able to successfully challenge HighKing's source analysis. Many of the keep !votes were only appeals to subjective measures of importance while the case for deletion was rooted in WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petzone

AfDs for this article:
Petzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Petzone... the entity fails at WP:NCORP and PR/advertisements-based articles are masquerading as news i.e., WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. First of all, as someone in the Middle East who knows a lot about which kinds of chain stores are notable and which ones are not -- this is the largest pet store in Kuwait with various stores in other countries as well, so there's no way that Petzone would fail WP:NCORP. It's equivalent to Petco and PetSmart in the US. With multiple features in the Gulf News, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The National, and other top-tier newspapers in the Gulf, these are not definitely not press releases at all. Also they're notable enough to have made it onto the Arabic and Persian versions, which are both now quite tough on notability standards and anti-advertising policies. I would suggest taking a closer look at this before considering deletion. Hawawshibread (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawawshibread, Not enough good reasons. Could you justify your statements with relevant Wikipedia guidelines? -Hatchens (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep they don't seem notable in the Anglosphere, but visiting the references on Google or just doing a simple search of their nameshows they are notable in Arabic-speaking countries, with in-depth articles about them on major news sites (not just blogs). Not all Citations are paid as there is a winning award in their niche segment so isn't a reason to delete the page, as the article isn't defamatory - either ignore it and leave it to someone else or check the references and remove the irrelevant ones. They also have articles on Persian and Tagalog Wikipedia in addition to animal welfare support which seems to be important to their community. Humble84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if those arguing for keeping the article could point to some reliable sources discussing the topic. These sources need not be in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless better sources can be found. I looked at those currently cited and all appear to be not independent or not reliable, or don't provide significant coverage. The Arabic Wikipedia article was deleted, and the other languages only cite sources that are in the English article. A865 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep here a reliable source in Arabic that shows they are notable with contributions for local comunity in a top-tier mainstream Al Qabas click to veiw plus they do have an award in their niche buisness which shows that they are known in their segment.Humble84 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
double vote struck. Further evidence allowed, of course. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, of course non of us like a page who created to be deleted after a big effort and that also frankly make my vote less weighted here in your discussion. My ponit of view that they have the following reilaible and independant souces:

1.click to veiw 2._ click to veiw 3._ click to veiw 4.click to veiw End of the day I respect all of your opinions and your decision whether to keep or delete it.Regards Darksheild (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't have to follow what other language wikis do, the unsourced claims by other commenters that this is one of the largest pet stores or equivalent to PetSmart seems to fall if even the Arabic article was deleted. KoA (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I confess that I am animal lover and have a bias for all things pet related. The company has been mentioned by a reputable source - Gulf News [1]. However the article is more about the terrible event rather than a focus on the company. This is a list of what probably was a curated list by an author[2]InfiNeuro (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/community/dubai-emmy-the-miracle-kitten-survives-after-being-in-a-20-minute-washing-machine-cycle-1.1590073007822
  2. ^ https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/community/animal-shelters-clinics-and-take-in-organisations-in-the-uae-1.619824
  • Comment:I see that they contribute to animal welfare in 3rd world countrires like Middle East plus support animals rights and community education in non profit way. I feel that wikipedia community should take a look to the importance of this topic rather than other factors. Last but not least I am not a sockpuppet for any user here!Humble84 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Policy based non SPA votes would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
  • I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obviously not e.g. blogs, social media, etc) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria as follows.
  • This from Kuwait Business Review has no accredited author/journalist and is a "puff profile" containing sentences such as "sharpening their team's focus on achieving the company goals". It is basically an advertisement and reads like copy produced by, or in conjunction with, the company. There is no evidence of any "Independent Content" and there is also a lack of in-depth information on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from The Magazine Plus is a press release from IssueWire (a Press Release Distribution Network). Not "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
  • This from VetHub is based entirely on a company announcement which is acknowledged in the headline and has no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
  • This from PetQuip contains no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. The award is not significant and doesn't contribute to notability.
  • This from Kuwait News Agency is a mere mention-in-passing with insignificant in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Gulf News is a list which includes a description provided by topic company itself, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from the Kuwait Times has no attributed journalist and is a "puff profile" and an advertisement masquerading as news, fails ORGIND
  • This from 248am is a blog post from community website, fails as a reliable source.
  • This from Arab Times is a reprint of the same article from Kuwait News Agency above, fails for the same reasons as above
  • This from TimeOut Dubai is a list of "pet-friently" places in Dubai which mentions the topic company. Fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Buffalo News is from Issuewire and is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
  • This from Kuwait Times is the same article as this in Kuwait24hours and is a "puff profile", entirely promotional relying on information provided by the company and quotes from anonymous staff. Fails ORGIND.
  • This from Kuwait Local is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This from TimeOut Dubai is another list which mentions the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from National News Lifestyle is a mere mention, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Bayut is a list which mentions (one of the stores of) the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Gulf News describes how a kitten was treated at a veterinary clinic run by the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from What's On says that stray cats can be brought to the topic company's veterinary clinic at Sheikh Zayed Road from November 17 to 19. Fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Alqabas.com (which was mentioned above also) mentions the company in passing. Fails CORPDEPTH
In summary, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd like it if we covered more businesses in countries outside North America and Europe, but we do need reliable sources independent of the subject providing some in-depth coverage. The links provided are, well, HighKing summarizes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we seem to have rather double-standards about businesses. I nominate an ice-cream outlet in New York for deletion because the only sources are passing mentions, interviews and churnalism, and I get a stiff reminder that WP has no policy on interviews, only an essay. Parallel situation with the largest pet-store chain in Kuwait, and suddenly we're a lot more careful about sources. It'd be nice were we consistent. Elemimele (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems from the last comment that you notability here is subjective topic and what you applied here you do not apply there! You cannot compare the covarge momentum for regional Kuwaiti company to North American ones and in this case you will not add buisnesses from outside. For the animal rights in 3rd world country you should seriously consider keeping it elsewise it is all up to you.Humble84 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. HighKing++ 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is more (better/more references) I don't see this as notable for a single page at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the keep voters here. Seems to be a big store in Kuwait based on the citations. kuwaittimes is a good one and from top Kuwait publication. This is also indepth. Plus I found THIS additional citation in Google news. Possibly there are also Arabic citations that none of us are finding, since it doesn't seem anyone here speaks Arabic. Zeddedm (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasoning of "seems like a big store" doesn't appear in our guidelines so irrelevant. The KuwaitTimes piece is a puff profile which relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from an anonymous "store manager". It is also irrelevant that it is from "top Kuwait publication" once it is a reliable source - we need the content to meet certain criteria and this doesn't. The next one you say is "also indepth" but it has no attributable journalist (red flag for WP:RS) and is another puff profile fill of peacock terms and descriptions such as "From their humble beginnings" and "PetZone’s expertise in enhanced pet care provided customers with the best and most sought after international brands that are available in the market", etc. The additional citation found in Google News is marked as "Partner Content" and was produced by the company - impossible to miss - so fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. This is a paid for PR piece sourced to PR pieces with no in depth coverage. Sources in Arabic are equally as lackluster (and Alaa, a native speaker has previously said as much.) These sources are largely blackhat SEO and the ones that aren't are blatant press releases and passing mentions. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this should be g4'd - it is word for word identical to the previous iteration - the only difference it's created by a new sock with new fake news sources. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If by "force" you mean that there will be multiple high-quality, independent sources giving in-depth coverage about the topic, then I think the editors here will applaud that as wonderful! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the article is written with no marketing or promotion language plus this store is well known in GCC. Enogh sources and citations came in organic way also without promotion or paid intentions.188.70.15.244 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. HighKing's source analysis is spot-on, and my searches could not identify any coverage that would meet the strictures of WP:NCORP. There is no indication that genuinely independent reliable sources have afforded significant coverage to this company. I hope the closer looks beyond the !vote count here: there are serious issues with the keep !votes, both with regard to strength of argument and with regard to possible SPAs/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. (I note that two keep !voters have already been indeffed for sockpuppetry.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I check the citations and seems to me many are significant and organic. It is a store chain so we should not except super rich news about such topics in general. This store is quite popular and well known in GCC and thet really add a big improvemnt on pet care industry in middle east.188.71.218.177 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disgree with a vote about blackhat SEO. Many links are not paid and there is a wining award in addition to mainstream citations. My undsrstanding it passes WP:NCORP.185.247.91.12 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Kuwaiti petshop? Grief. Clear fail of WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing's analysis above. Seems like there's so much of "IP-sockpuppetry" over here. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about a non-notable pet shop! Clearly fail WP:NCORP.

Ahmed (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep I see that the voting here is in favour of deleting it although the entity is notable in their niche. For the vote who mention a Kuwaiti pet store? ... this store also have 3 big location in UAE and one of the first ones too!212.70.119.234 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NCORP and on suspicion of being partly promotional. Certainly, an unwarranted number of anons have shown up to !vote without rationales. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (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 we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeWelcome

AfDs for this article:
BeWelcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng(TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:SNG --Geysirhead (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng(TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination--Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng(TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar--Geysirhead (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic.Unbh (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng(TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng(TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen --Geysirhead (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, trivial coverage onlyUnbh (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article.Unbh (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.--Geysirhead (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability.Unbh (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902(https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng(TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: read WP:REPEAT--Geysirhead (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument.Unbh (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources.Unbh (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two.Unbh (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORGUnbh (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles.Unbh (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities (5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account...Unbh (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [23] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

--Geysirhead (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [24] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brihans Natural Products

Brihans Natural Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a lot of PR sources - some explicitly labeled so, others given away by promotional text. Couldn't find anything to pass WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – As per WP:THREE, with these sources: [25], [26], [27], extra: [28]. I had also added a few google book sources ([29], [30]) when I had made improvements to the article last week. The company's finances are also covered in an Economic Times profile: [31]. On the existing aritcle, I don't know if mentions in these market/complaint reports count: [32], [33]. I suggest stubifying it to the reliably sourced material. If the article absolutely needs to be deleted, please draftify it instead. I am happy to take up the challenge of improving it, but I won't be able to hunt for offline sources at the local library or Times of India office for the next several weeks at least. Thanks! 2405:201:1006:E03A:54AD:9797:B968:CB1D (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requirements for companies is much more demanding than WP:GNG. None of the links you mention (many are already in the article) pass the requirements of NCORP. For eg, ToI article on an award by a little known society is promotional and does not appear independent (it all started, the uniqueness of these products, established new standards, the most modern way). Business Line and the two Financial Express articles are routine product launch coverage. ET/BI profiles are basically just pro-forma stock pages. I encourage you to read WP:NCORP once carefully. (I also note that your sources aren't quite the ones to pass WP:THREE; none are independent) hemantha (brief) 06:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I vote to draftify, in that case. 2405:201:1006:E03A:A573:938A:59CF:9934 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 7 February 2022 (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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 February 2022 (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. per sources provided during the discussion. I suggest further integration into the article, but that's not a matter for AfD. Star Mississippi 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Hotel Alliance

AfDs for this article:
Global Hotel Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO article that doesn't show notability per what's required in WP:NCORP. The article is merely a document of the company's holdings and its loyalty program. A search for WP:RS comes up empty (just some chatter in hospitality industry trade press, nothing of broader social interest) because it's a private holding company. FalconK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Zámborský, Peter; Kruesi, Michael A. (2018-01-02). "Global Hotel Alliance: Strategy Discovery Moving East". SAGE Business Cases. SAGE Publishing. doi:10.4135/9781526440044. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        This case study has a length of 4,128 words. Here is the outline of the case study:

        1. Case
        2. Learning Outcomes
        3. Introduction
        4. GHA Background
        5. DISCOVERY Rewards Program
        6. Competitor Analysis
        7. Strategic Challenges Faced by the GHA
        8. Conclusion
        9. Discussion Questions
        10. Further Reading
        11. References
        The case study notes in the "Conclusion" section: "With the move of its headquarters from Geneva to Dubai, the GHA positioned itself well for the growing emerging markets in the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, the alliance faced stiff competition from other hotel alliances with a global footprint, global hotel multinationals, and some strong local players in the luxury segment of the market where they competed. To overcome these strategic challenges, the GHA invested heavily in technology and marketing, trying to distinguish itself from competitors and provide value to its members and customers. The key decisions that the GHA management had to make related to its geographic positioning and marketing positioning in what has increasingly been a global marketplace for luxury hotels."
      2. Ind, Nicholas; Iglesias, Oriol (2016). Brand Desire: How to Create Consumer Involvement and Inspiration. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-1-4729-2535-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a two-page section titled "Global Hotel Alliance and transformational leadership". The book notes: "GHA was established in 2004 as a way of sharing customers and services across different independent hotel brands. Today, there are thirty-two brands and over 500 luxury hotels and resorts. The initial thought about building the GHA brand was to mimic the way airline alliances were structured – encouraging customers to collect points as they stayed at hotels and to cross-sell different experiences. In the early days the challenge though was getting the individual hotel group CEOs to agree on a way forward – everyone had their own subjective view of what would work."

      3. Verbeke, Alain; Roberts, Robin E.; Delaney, Deborah; Zámborský, Peter; Enderwick, Peter; Nagar, Swati (2019). Contemporary International Business in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-108-62068-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a "Spotlight" titled "The Global Hotel Alliance seeking growth in the East". The book notes: "Boutique hotel chains from the Asia-Pacific region, including Rydges and Antara, joined forces with other luxury hotels and formed the Global Hotel Alliance (GHA). The GHA represents over 34 brands with over 500 hotels and resorts operating in more than 76 countries. The alliance moved its headquarters from Geneva, Switzerland, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates in 2014. Thus, it positioned itself for growth in the East rather than focusing on Europe and America, where its competitors hailed from; ... Thirty-three per cent of GHA's hotels are located in the Asia-Pacific region, closely behind Europe (34 per cent) and ahead of the Middle East and Africa (20 per cent)."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Chathoth, Prakash K. (2008). "Strategic alliances in the hospitality industry". In Olsen, Michael; Zhao, Jinlin (eds.). Handbook of Hospitality Strategic Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-08-045079-7. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Yet another example of a marketing alliance that uses technology to create synergy is the Global Hotel Alliance. ... This alliance has brought together seven prominent hotel brands that include Dusit Hotels & Resorts; Kempinski Hotels; Landis Hotels & Resorts; Marco Polo Hotels; Omni Hotels; Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; and The Leela Palaces and Resorts. This also provides the allying firms with a more global access to markets while at the same time providing customers with a one-stop internet site that provides customers and travel agents with attractive prices and access to all member hotels' products, while providing them access to airline products as well."

      2. Gong, Yeming (2013). Global Operations Strategy: Fundamentals and Practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 196. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3. ISBN 978-3-642-36707-6. ISSN 2192-4333. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The hospitality industry has also built a number of alliances. For example, the "global hotel alliance" (GHA) is a collection of 14 luxury regional hotel brands with 300 hotels, palaces and resorts in 52 countries around the world. An important RM tool of GHA is "GHA Discovery", a loyalty program rewarding travelers with "local experiences" to offer members access to a large selection of adventures not easily available to the general public, since GHA believes that rewarding members with memorable experiences is more valuable than collecting points. GHA Discovery also provides general hotel benefits such as complimentary Internet, early check-in, late check-out, upgrades, and guaranteed availability."

      3. Evans, Nigel (2015) [2003]. Strategic Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Events (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 418. ISBN 978-0-415-83727-9. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Global Hotel Alliance (GHA) brings together mainly mid-to-upscale brands from around the world. Unlike Best Western it represents smaller chains of hotels which maintain their individual branding. The consortium represents brands such as ParkRoyal, Pan Pacific and Marco Polo which have properties across Asia Pacific; and Kempinski Hotels, a luxury brand with properties across Europe, Asia and Africa and Leela, which is represented at key locations across India."

      4. Sharkey, Jon (2004-03-16). "Business Travel: On the Road; At Upscale Hotels, Women Have Power". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Skeptical industry executives say it is not at all certain that a partnership like Global Hotel Alliance, comprising highly individualized independent regional companies, each run by strong-willed executives, can cooperate and compete persuasively against the luxury giants for the valued international traveler. ... All four of the participating chains, which have a total of 235 upscale hotels mostly in the boutique and midsize categories, already market personalized services, of course."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Global Hotel Alliance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in that case we should replace the article completely with material from the case studies. I'm surprised I didn't uncover those. FalconK (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep argument may be mistakenly worded, but it seems to indicate that an analysis of the sources was not performed. Therefore a more thorough look should be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (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 charge that WP:NORG was not meet was not addressed successfully. I do not see a strong case for a redirect: the fact that the label's founder also founded Fearless Records (a page that doesn't mention the subject) doesn't seem to be sufficient. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller Records

Thriller Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails WP:NORG as a WP:BEFORE shows user generated sources, and Vendor sources. WP:ORGDEPTH is a major fail here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the page creator's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my rationale above doesn’t appear to be In accordance with my comment, I didn’t say anything about vendor sources or user generated sources in my comment above, I mentioned WP:NORG not being met and WP:SIRS not being applicable, there simply is no WP:SIGCOV as required by NCORP, so I’m not entirely sure why your reply isn’t in synergy with my comment directly above. Celestina007 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:50, 13 February 2022 (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 9 Horses. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyâropa Records

Adhyâropa Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This record label exists, though it mainly publishes people associated with it, but there is no reliable coverage of any depth of the company. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:19, 3 February 2022 (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. Please move sources discovered into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse

Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doe not meet GNG. One ref is the company website. The other is short local restaurant review (a Orange Coast Magazine directory-type listing that is published often). Searching finds social media, restaurant review sites, etc, all of which is routine for almost any restaurant. I found one newspaper article about a rodent infestation problem that is not in the article. MB 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Restaurant reviews:
      1. Hodgins, Paul (1998-01-03). "Hidden Treasure - Steak house gets snippy - Nixon resigned his tie without regret at this renowned canyon-country steak house". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The 513-word restaurant review notes: "The Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is one of those rustic roadhouses that, at first glance, looks nothing like a place where our 37th president would have felt comfortable. Tucked into a leafy, rural south-county byway near O'Neill Regional Park, the 29-year-old restaurant (born the year Dick was elected to the Oval Office) is the picture of homey unpretentiousness. ... Obviously, Dick didn't. A cherished 1979 photo, guarded by plexiglass on the left as you enter, shows Nixon losing his neckwear to the scissors _ that must have made the Secret Service guys jumpy _ and next to it is the offending tie, ..."

        The Orange County Register is a regional newspaper which means that the restaurant passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:

        The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

      2. Chao, Fifi (2005-07-04). "Legendary Haunts: Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 27. pp. 28–29. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 17640982.

        The 333-word restaurant review notes: "We have to thank the original owners who opened Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse 37 years ago. Steve and Dori Nordeck, the owners since 1987, have kept the fun tradition and the good, understandable food coming. This place is one of a kind. Live oak trees, huge ones, grow right through the roof of the restaurant. The wall and ceiling decorations are neckties cut from city dudes who didn't know the rules: come in with a tie and leave without the bottom two thirds. For all the fun of kicking back in casual clothes at this cozy, rustic place, the food is serious."

      3. Chao, Fifi (2004-07-05). "Summer in the Cities: Trabuco Oak Steakhouse". Orange County Business Journal. Vol. 27, no. 27. pp. 45–46. ISSN 1051-7480. EBSCOhost 13773882.

        The restaurant review notes: "Trabuco Oaks still is completely rustic with raw wood beams and studs showing off their might, albeit behind literally thousdands of neckties on display that have been cut from dudes who wandered in grossly overdressed for the occasion. And we must not forget to point out that the massive oak tree, arund which the restaurant was built, still grows through the roof, necessitating a larger roof opening every few years to accommodate it. ... Chef Mario Moreno started as a dishwasher here 15 years ago and stayed on, turning into a superb grill chef."

    2. Significant coverage and passing mentions:
      1. Perry, Charles (2003-02-26). "Steak served with a legacy". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides 193 words of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse is an oddity, maybe because it opened in the contrarian ‘60s (the year was 1968). ... the county's most venerable steakhouse is way up in the hills, and its decor is closer to Dogpatch than Las Vegas. This might have been the restaurant that started the cute custom of snipping the necktie off anybody who walks in wearing one. The back dining room is a morgue of martyred neckties, hanging from the rafters in their thousands like rumpled, bravely colorful stalactites, speaking mutely of the changing necktie styles of decades past."

      2. "Tie is prime cut at steakhouse". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 2007-07-08. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Signed, framed jerseys are everywhere in restaurants, but there's a more impressive piece of sports memorabilia at the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse in Orange County's Trabuco Canyon. It's a rustic place where they'll cut off your tie if you wear one, and thousands of those lopped-off accessories hang from the ceiling or are stapled to the walls."

      3. Epstein, Benjamin (1998-05-28). "Happy Trails--Until We Eat Again". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "For dinner, it’s hard to beat the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse. Just inside is a bathtub full of plants and a display of barbed wire; farther along is a fascinating collection of ceramic Jim Beam whisky bottles. The restaurant has held fast to a no-tie policy for 30 years, which means there’s no holding fast enough to yours to keep it from joining the 7,500 other ties hanging from the rafters. [one more paragraph about the restaurant's offerings]"

      4. Hamm, Catharine (2019-03-17). "It's about the animals on a weekend escape to Orange County's canyon country". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Lunch was a turkey sandwich eaten under an oak tree, so I felt no guilt about a steak dinner at Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, which prides itself on its no-necktie policy. The cut-off remnants of neckwear have become part of the restaurant’s decor, including one from 1979 said to have belonged to former President Nixon. My 8-ounce sirloin ($26) went well with a skillet of hot button mushrooms, and Gary seemed happy with his 8-ounce filet ($36). Best steak we ever had? Not quite, but it was far more succulent than that turkey sandwich."

      5. Inge, Arline, ed. (2007) [1983]. A Marmac Guide to Los Angeles and Northern Orange County: 5th Edition. Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-58980-393-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse ... This quaint little hideaway in the country is the local choice for the best steaks around. Business cards and snipped ties from customers, including Richard Nixon, cover the walls along with funky signs and sayings. Its specialty is great-tasting beef. Dinner nightly."

      6. Quines, Bryan (2008-01-17). "Feel like you could eat a cow? Try these places". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "For a steak cooked the cowboy way, head to Trabuco Oaks Steak House ... The roadhouse serves steaks cooked over a true mesquite grill. No electric or gas, just fire and wood. Fancy clothes ain’t welcome here, city slicker, and employees will cut your tie off if you even try. Hundreds of ties adorn the walls, including Richard Nixon’s, displayed near the entrance. The big daddy on the menu is the Cowboy ($46.96), a 32-ounce aged top sirloin steak. The waitress warns that even medium cooked steaks will have some pink so order accordingly. For a side, try the hand-cut fries. They’re even better than In-N-Out’s spuds."

      7. Cuniff, Meghann M. (2018-06-29). "San Juan Capistrano mourns Steve Nordeck, 76, proprietor of Swallow's Inn and El Adobe". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the restaurant. The article notes about Steve Nordeck: "He for several years owned the Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse, a destination restaurant near where Moiso and Aguirre were developing Rancho Santa Margarita."

      8. "Unlikely Achievers in the Orange County Restaurant Scene". Orange Coast. 2018-04-19. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject: "Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse Hefty, mesquite-grilled steaks in the county’s remaining wilderness, resisting change since 1968."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trabuco Oaks Steakhouse to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:06, 3 February 2022 (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. There is clearly no agreement on whether or not the sources found by Cunard show that a detailed article can be written on this subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SudShare

AfDs for this article:
SudShare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this was recently closed as Keep (non-admin closure) it occurred over a holiday period and although I was more than half-way through the references I was not in a position to comment. I opened a discussion on the Talk page with the original author (COI declared, all above board) and I can immediately see their grasp on our NCORP guidelines is flawed, as were those of the editor that moved from draft only to then nominate for deletion (that is *not* the way to do things, if you're not sure then don't move from drafts to mainspace). There is extensive analysis of sources on the articles Talk space and I can duplicate it here if necessary. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability there topic fails HighKing++ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had hoped to be able to respond to @HighKing's comments on the SudShare talk page before they re-nominated it for deletion, but I've been dealing with a rather intense flare-up of some chronic health issues this past week or so, and didn't have the ability to respond until now. I apologize for that delay, and for not informing anyone I was dealing with that, leading to a fragmented discussion. I'm going to try to respond to the issues brought up in detail below, but it may take me a while due to lack of energy, and I beg the nominator's/closer's patience if I haven't responded within the normal time limit. Obviously I can't ask you to delay closing if too much time passes, and hopefully this won't even be an issue and I'll be able to respond in full today, but just in case, I feel I owe it to the community to explain my delayed response. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with acknowledgment that I have a conflict of interest as a former employee of SudShare). [I should not have made it seem like I was submitting a vote here, that was inappropriate of me and I deeply apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, but it should merely be read as an argument for why editors without a COI might want to vote "keep," not a vote in-and-of-itself.] [see page history/Timtrent's comments below for context on the mess above; this apparently should count as a vote] Okay, so there's a lot to discuss here, so I'm going to break my reply up into smaller segments for reading/editing comprehension. I will also be relying on the assumption that editors reading this have already read the discussion on the SudShare talk page, and will continue where that left off. Please let me know if you have any issues with my formatting, or if you need a quick recap of the preceding discussion.
The first issue that I'd like to bring up here is that of the concept of "puff pieces," their definition, and how they relate to WP:NCORP. The reason I'm bringing this up is because HighKing (who, it should be noted, I think is a pretty awesome editor in general, although I'm arguing against a large swath of his past AfD comments) uses the concept extensively to dismiss a large number of sources (for failing NCORP specifically) on both the SudShare page as well as many other pages nominated for AfD in the past. This, I believe, is due to a (good faith) mistaken impression both of what a "puff piece" actually is, and how that effects notability concerns. For reference, here is HighKing's definition of a "puff piece," as taken from the SudShare talk page discussion.

"First this has nothing to do with the reputation of a journalist, it has to do with the content. In general, "puff pieces" have a particular format which usually goes includes all or most of the following "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". That article fits the bill therefore its a puff piece. And there's nothing to say that a reputable journalist doesn't do puff pieces."

This definition is commendable for its clarity, but differs significantly from the commonly accepted meaning of the term. How do I know this? Well, let's take a look at this excellent article from the Wall Street Journal on the history and definition of the term:

In the classic journalism textbook “News Reporting and Writing,” Melvin Mencher defines “puff piece” or “puffery” as a “publicity story or a story that contains unwarranted superlatives.”....a 1732 article in London Magazine explains that “puff” is a “cant word” (or bit of jargon) “for the applause that writers or booksellers give their own books &c. to promote their sale.”....In legal usage, “puffery” took on the meaning of overblown advertising based on subjective claims.....“Puff piece” has continued to grow as a derisive jab against fawning media accounts—as has its antonym “hatchet job,” for an unfair attack on someone or something.....to someone predisposed to dislike the subject matter, even the most dispassionate report might look like a puff piece.

Note that there is no mention in this article, or in any article I could find with a quick google search, that defines a "puff piece" as a piece of media with any specific format, as described by HighKing. Rather, the generally accepted definition seems to be a piece of media loaded with "unwarranted superlatives," very similar to Wikipedia's own definition of MOS:PUFFERY (also see WP:PUFF, and WP:BUZZ): "positively loaded language" designed to promote the subject of an article. This does not mean that any and every article which only talks about positive aspects of a person, corporation, or entity is a puff piece, but rather that puff pieces are specifically loaded with unwarranted superlatives.
Secondly, let's assume that an article is indeed a "puff piece" as described by HighKing. Does that make any difference in assessing notability for WP:NCORP or WP:BIO? I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Looking at WP:PUFF, WP:BUZZ, and MOS:PUFFERY, it is notable that all of these pages are about writing style within Wikipedia, not that of outside sources. It's a matter of common sense (and I'm sure there's an explicit policy about it somewhere) that sources do not have to follow WP:MOS to be establish notability or reliability. Rather, the core question is if the source can be trusted to be truthful (even if it does not contain a complete history of the subject), and if discussion of the subject can be considered "significant" (if one wishes to use the source to establish notability). The "feel" of the article, quite simply, does not and should not play a role here. The one exception to the above rule of thumb, per WP:NEWSORG, is that if the article is clearly an opinion piece, or if the publisher has a reputation for inaccuracy, then it should not be used in most contexts. If an article contains excessive "unwarranted superlatives," than of course we shouldn't use it to establish WP:NCORP, but if it merely follows the format that HighKing describes, that should not influence our judgement when considering NCORP decisions at AfD.
One objection that I can imagine being made at this point is that I'm failing to consider WP:ORGIND. This is not so. To paraphrase from ORGIND:

There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author (the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product), and independence of the content (the content must not be produced by interested parties)

If an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty writes an article which is generally favorable towards a company (but does not cross over into an opinion piece), that does not violate ORGIND, although you may personally wish the journalist had dug up some dirt on the company during her coverage or something. To assume that any positive coverage must be the work of company insiders, even when dealing with, for example, a front-page article on a 16-times Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper just doesn't seem right to me. Yes, we must do our due diligence to insure that corporations aren't "gaming the system," but this reading of NCORP seems to be going way too far, which is why I have chosen to start off by talking about this.
I will continue my discussion (and subsequent points/responses) in a reply to this below, when I have the energy to continue writing.
Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It is notable that you've taken a nit-picking approach to my use of the term "puff piece" - fine, call it a "puff profile" then so that there's no overlap with the other term.
Most of your argument is designed to avoid the actual test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met. (Hint: We read the actual words in the actual article.) Your entire argument above can be summed up as a modification to ORGIND along the lines of 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 *except* if its an independent journalist with a reputation for fact checking and honesty. It is fairly easy to predict where we'd end up if we went down this particular road. Please see WP:LAWYER.
In our discussions to date, I've asked you to point to specific content within any of those articles which meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and I'm still waiting. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[writing out a detailed response, will post once complete (hopefully this afternoon). Putting this placeholder here to indicate I'm not ignoring this, just writing slowly] Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response HighKing I apologize for the "nitpicky" style of my my argument so far. You're also totally correct that I haven't yet addressed the specific content within the articles here in favor of a more abstract approach. I can understand your concern that I'm leaning dangerously close to Wikilawyering, and I'll try to be better about that in the future (though some of this is just my personal long-winded style, and for that I can't honestly promise I'll be better, since I'm quite terrible at condensing my thoughts).
First however, just to answer your objection, I'm afraid that there might have been a misunderstanding. The core of my above argument was simply that your criteria for determining that something is a "puff piece," "puff profile," or whatever you wish to call it, is a disqualifying criteria that seems to be of your own invention, rather than originating in something within CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, other Wikipedia guidelines, or historical definitions (though you're right that the latter was irrelevant, and I apologize for getting carried away). That is to say, my understanding is that the "test we use to determine whether ORGIND or CORPDEPTH has been met" is to check if the content can be clearly attributable to an independent party, regardless of if that third party is writing in a format you've identified that you don't personally like or not. I did not mean to imply that we should simply trust journalists with solid reputations, though looking back, I see how my words could have easily been read that way. One place where journalistic reputation does genuinely come into play is when we're dealing with a known bad actor (such as fake news sites, tabloids, and some trade journals), which I brought up with the intention of saying that that isn't what we are dealing with here. Additionally, as per WP:CORPDEPTH, (under the "Numerical facts" subheading), "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." This clearly seems to indicate that we can indeed be more trusting of the independence of a reputable source, though that should in no way stop us from doing due diligence. Sincere apologies for the confusion, and I hope this helps you understand my position more clearly.
Okay, now on to specifics! I'll be going in the order of the articles you brought up in your last comment on the SudShare talk page, rather than in order of what I personally find to be the "strongest" sources, so I will be bringing up some genuinely borderline cases here, which I expect we might reasonably disagree on. I've also skipped a number of references brought up that you've either successfully convinced me aren't valid for NCORP (if you want I'd be happy to list them), or which we've already discussed to the point that I don't think further clarification on my part will help (happy to list those as well, of course, if you feel that would be useful).
  • With regards to the ESPN Sioux Falls reference, as discussed before, it does use a previously-written Sioux Falls article as its jumping-off point, but, I would argue, adds significant enough "original and independent opinion" and analysis to be considered independent for the purposes on NCORP. (For reference, the relevant quote in full is "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." Note the use of the words " must include" rather than "must consist solely of"—I think there was some confusion about that in your initial comment on the talk page). The relevant independent opinion and analysis in the article is as follows (apologies in advance for the length, but as you asked for direct quotes...):

    "Doing laundry is one of those universal chores that fall under the heading of nuisance. You know you need to do it for health and social reasons. After all, family members and friends prefer to spend time around loved ones who don't smell like 10-year-old sneakers. Plus, it's just not good form to wear the same t-shirt for two weeks, or turn your underwear inside out and wear it again! But you're busy, very busy! So busy that your hamper is overflowing. Or for some people, your bedroom floor is covered with so many dirty clothes, it looks and smells like a garbage dump. Or you're lazy, very lazy! Your trunk or truck bed has bags and bags of so many clothes, you no longer remember what might be in them. You only know for sure that your favorite pair of jeans has been missing for a month. Busy or lazy, it doesn't matter anymore....[At this point, information from the prior article is basically repeated]....Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who simply hate doing laundry, because SudShare is now available in 400 cities, with more being added all the time. If you decide to hire a “Sudster” the typical customer can expect to pay $35 to $40 per service. That is of course unless you had to rent a Pod, which is currently sitting on your driveway full of your dirty laundry!"

    This clearly includes significant Independent content, as defined above, primarily though rather colorful opinion/analysis. As someone (with a declared conflict of interest) who was an employee of SudShare at the time this article came out, I can assure you that no executive there would have signed off on an article straight up calling customers lazy. If that isn't independent of the company, I don't know what is!
    • With regards to the Sioux Falls article the ESPN article is based on, I think it might be (weakly) arguable that the use of cross-referencing the company's statements (such as the amount of money they claim can be made by contractors) with those of independent contractors counts as "fact checking". Probably not worth investigating further in this context, but I can imagine situations in which that sort of consideration could be relevant.
  • You've previously dismissed The Root article as being about the product, rather than the company, and asked me to specify where the company as a whole is discussed. Here are some relevant passages from the article, with some sections that are clearly about the company rather than the product in bold:

    I haven’t been to a laundromat in eons and frankly, all of the ones close to me are probably drug fronts. Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound.....While I feel a way about some random stranger both washing my clothes and HAVING THEM for so long—real talk, they could just decide not to deliver my clothes to me, kind of like that time I watched my UberEats driver drive RIGHT past my house doing like 65 mph with my order of Popeyes only to never be seen on the app again—I welcomed the opportunity to not have to fold everything.....So imagine my surprise when I’m getting clothes back folded, impressively so and more efficient and neatly than I do. I wasn’t prepared. I tipped one SudShare person $20 JUST because I was impressed with her folding. The way she folded my shirts gave me a new way to fold to maximize more space in my drawers....I was looking forward to having my clothes delivered so I could see what new and innovative ways folks are folding their clothes. I really didn’t know I cared this much about folded clothes until I had no choice but to have others wash my clothes. I’ve got new techniques and all.....Now thats not to say that the entire experience has been sweet. For instance, I’ve learned that many, many of you have no business washing OR folding folks clothes.....I have been testing certain clothes out, on purpose so I can build up a roster of folks who I’m fine with doing the wash; in SudShare you can request folks who have washed your clothes before.....I got one bag back of clothes and the socks weren’t even folded together. WHO DOES THAT? No (good) tip for you. Not to mention this same person didn’t even try to fold the shirts in a way that didn’t cause wrinkle-age....this SudSharer is basically the Alamo now—I’ll never forget. But I will say that I have mostly learned new and innovative ways to fold my clothes....With that said....this life starts to add up and ultimately nobody will care about my clothes the way that I do. But there are a few SudSharers who I now trust. They got good tips. And now my folded laundry looks different which is basically like having new clothes so it’s all win over here.

    The WP:SNOWFLAKE aspect of SudShare is its business model of using independent contractors who wash at home, rather than at laundromats. That's not the product, that's the core of what makes the business notable. Yes, obviously a review talking about sudsters, the anxiety of giving away your laundry for someone else to do, and the way the company allows connections to form with the workers involves the product (cleaned clothes), but in this case that clearly isn't the focus for much of the article. It's a discussion about the concept of trust and ownership, how SudShare works as a unique business model, and the quality (or lack thereof) of its workers/contractors, not solely (or even primarily) a pure product review.
  • I had written a whole thing on the Baltimore Sun article, but saw that Cunard had already provided an excellent explanation with quotes about the notability and independence of the article below, so unless you have further issues or questions not answered there, I don't feel like it's necessary for me to further clutter up this page with what's already been stated.
  • From the FreightWaves article, lines like "As COVID demonstrated, people will pay a premium for convenience, and that holds true for laundry, as evidenced by the exponential growth of a company like SudShare" could be considered independent analysis, although the bulk of the article is definitely not.
  • You asked which portions of the other Sioux Falls article were independent. Here are a few quotes that to me at least, pretty clearly indicate independent analysis/opinion on how SudShare has impacted the workforce:

    “Before this, I was doing factory work,” she said. “I did both for a while. And now I’m just doing (gig work) full time.” If you are in manufacturing, or logistics, or food processing, think about that. Stoopes could have been one of your employees. And, unlike what some continue to insist to me, it’s not that she’s sitting at home relying on government assistance. It’s not that she just decided to drop out of the workforce. It’s that instead of working on a production line, she’s in her car delivering other people’s groceries or in her laundry room washing and drying their clothes. And she loves it

    ....I see it in my own business constantly. My ability to attract and retain talent is highly influenced by my willingness to offer them as much control over their time as possible. That’s not always easy in a deadline-driven job. I fully recognize that working for us comes second to whatever is going on in their lives and that they will prioritize their time accordingly, and as a leader it’s ultimately on me to make it all work. That’s clearly more doable in some industries than others, which explains why some are suffering so acutely for workers, I think. You generally can’t let front-line health or safety workers create their own hours or work environment. Someone has to be in the kitchen cooking when the customer is there to eat. You can’t assemble a complex product or process a hog from home. But we as leaders also can benefit by thinking more like that teenager in Baltimore. And by remembering that just because we don’t necessarily see them, workers like Stoopes are creating their own version of work.....It’s possible to build culture and loyalty even in a more fragmented workplace. But, again, it takes a more modern approach. Fittingly, right after I spoke with my first Sudster, I stopped by Talent Draft Day, an event hosted this year by the University of Sioux Falls....USF president Brett Bradfield was one of many who heard me retell the story of the Sudster I’d just met earlier that day. It didn’t surprise him, either. “I’ve had some people ask me when I think things are going to get back to normal,” he told me. Neither one of us said anything for a moment, probably thinking the same thing. Forget normal. Change and disruption are the new normal. And if you’re struggling to hire, don’t forget about people like the Sudster.

    I think this speaks for itself as an excellent independent opinion piece that uses an interview as a jumping-off point, but which ultimately meets NCORP with a unique reading of SudShare's employees and business practices through the lens of the changing workforce.
I hope all of this helps you understand why I believe in the notability of the SudShare article.
Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "what matters for NCORP is if the information in an article is produced/fact checked by independent parties or not" which is largely correct, but you've omitted the bit that says the fact-checking must be "clearly attributable". You're trying to introduce an assumption that a journalist's integrity shouldn't be questioned and we should base a decision on the "quality" of the journalist. Nothing in the guidelines even comes close to this assumption and for good reason. HighKing++ 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to quickly note that a number of articles seem to have come out since the wiki page was last edited. Some are probably relevant to the discussion, though others are probably not. New articles include:
  • This MinneInno article about SudShare moving headquarters (probably useless for NCORP)
  • This front-cover article in Mishpacha Magazine, a family-oriented Jewish newspaper (I found out about it from my local Jewish community talking about it), which seems pretty in-depth: https://mishpacha.com/loads-of-profit/ This is almost certainly of relevance, and I highly recommend at least checking it out. (I personally think it should meet NCORP, though my guess is HighKing might consider it a "puff piece," as discussed above) [per HighKing's points below, I no longer believe this, and concur with their assessment]
  • This interview, which isn't of any use on Wikipedia beyond serving as a new source for some non-controversial facts.
  • This article, which while seemingly partially based on past reporting, does also include some original reporting, which might be helpful.
  • This listicle article; make of it what you will (probably not much?)
Hope this is helpful :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mishpacha Magazine reference is a puff profile (my new phrase!) that follows the same dull format as all the others - "Define problem, describe AHA moment, describe solution, describe funding, describe wins/successes, vague future comments". This one even publishes a photo from the "Family archives". I mean, c'mon, are you even trying?
The Baltimore Magazine article is also a "puff profile". Not sure what "some original reporting" is meant to mean relative to our guidelines. If you mean ORGIND then you're gonna need to highlight which bit meets ORGIND because the article is *entirely* based on information provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing This isn't me "trying" or not, just posting some potentially relevant updates on the situation. In retrospect mentioning my personal opinion was a mistake here, since that wasn't my primary goal, and I didn't want to be adversarial (though I realize I've clearly come across that way). I'll try to address the details with quotes in the reply to our conversation above I'm working on, as per your request. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could help me with an aspect of your position I'm confused about—would you mind linking some Wikipedia articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines? I'm having a really hard time even imagining what an article of that sort would look like for you, which means I'm probably misunderstanding something about your position. Thanks, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzilitt (paid), I'll take it to your Talk page rather than cluttering this one up and for us to avoid WP:BLUD allegations. HighKing++ 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Some of the articles include quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and there is enough depth of coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.
    1. Mirabella, Lorraine (2021-11-15). "Pikesville father and son roll out national 'Uber for laundry' concept". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article is an in-depth profile of the company. It includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but it also includes independent research and reporting. The article notes: "SudShare, which the teen launched four years ago with his father, an entrepreneur, now has customers in 400 cities who pay other people to wash their clothes. The service employs an army of gig-economy contractors, paid by the pound, to wash those clothes in their home laundry rooms. ... Like Uber, SudShare works through a scheduling app and on-demand pickup — of laundry, that is. For $1 per pound and a $20 minimum, customers can leave bags of clothes at their doors to be picked up, washed, dried, folded and delivered the next day."

      The article quotes from an independent expert:

      “I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.”

      But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand.

    2. Hebron, Grace (January 2022). "Baltimore-Born App Allows Locals to Outsource Their Laundry: Somewhere between a rideshare service and a laundromat, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities". Baltimore. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The article notes: "Since its local takeoff roughly three years ago, SudShare has evolved to service 400 cities, now with more than 55,000 Sudsters spread across the U.S. And though much has changed since 2018—the Fertel brothers moved to Minneapolis, MN, where SudShare is now headquartered—“Baltimore remains one of our biggest cities,” says Fertel."

    3. Jackson, Panama (2021-05-27). "My Washer Broke and I've Had to Outsource My Favorite Chore—Washing Clothes. I've Learned a Few Things". The Root. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

      The author reviews her experiences with SudShare. I consider a review of the author's experiences and learnings with using SudShare to be significant coverage about SudShare. The article notes: "Luckily, this new gig-economy has created a service that does all of the heavy lifting for you: SudShare. SudShare—and no this is not an ad—is an app that lets you outsource your laundry. You put all your clothes in bags and then a person comes to pick the stuff up and then they wash, dry, fold and then return your clothes back to you by the 8 p.m. the next day at $1 a pound."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SudShare to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Almost none of the above argument by Cunard meets our NCORP guidelines. For example, a "review of the author's experiences" with the product/service is not applicable for establishing the notability of the company - if the topic was about the product/service then it might. Cunard's understanding of "Independent Coverage" ignores the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Cunard says an article "includes independent research" but then quotes a generic paragraph that has appeared in several of the other advertorials. Cunard also appears to misunderstand the requirement for such "Independent Content" to also assist with CORPDEPTH, the quotation from the marketing exec - that its a "good idea" - falls well short. HighKing++ 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not agree with the analysis that a "review of the author's experiences" is insufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. It would not be beneficial to the reader to have the article only be about the company's product/service of providing laundry services through independent contractors. But if refocusing the article would change your viewpoint to support retention, then that is an option.

        Regarding "the quotation from the marketing exec", the quotation was not from a marketing executive. It was from a marketing university professor. The full quote is "“I definitely think it’s a good idea,” said Marie Yeh, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. “I think it can work for the right consumer. There are going to be some consumers who aren’t going to like that idea of people touching your clothes.” But she can see it appealing to others, such as busy professionals who rely on shared laundry facilities or laundromats. A key, she believes, will be finding ways to retain enough reliable contractors to meet demand." This is independent and detailed analysis from an expert at a university.

        Cunard (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        • Response You're conflating the two different uses we make of references. The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* - but like you say, it can still be used to support "fleshing out" the article and support facts, etc. When we say the reference fails NCORP, we're only ruling it out from assistingg in establishing notability, we're not banning its use. On the quote from the marketing professor, where's the "in-depth information" about the *company*? It's a throwaway opinion of little content, does not assist in establishing notability because there's isn't enough from her. HighKing++ 22:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SudShare participants: Nomadicghumakkad (talk · contribs), Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs), Yitzilitt (paid) (talk · contribs), and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. and in complete agreement with the reasons provided by Timtrent, and Falcon Kirtaran. - Hatchens (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially an advertisement. Almost all the references are press releases or announcements. I notice that a number of the sources suggest as acceptable above contain extensive information--on prices, and details of using the system, which is not encyclopedic content . The definition of promotional content is content intended to appeal to the prospective user, and almost every one of these qualifies. (They all tend to copy each other, which is a good sign that they're derived form the same press release) The reason for the promotional coverage in so many local sources is, of course, that during the pandemic a great many people were looking for such services--we should indeed cover this, but in general articles and a very few of the refs above might be useful there. Google and the thousands of local web sites did an excellent job covering the possibilities--I have an extensive collection of links relevant to my area, and probably so do many of us. Despite the evident desires of some former officers of the WMF, we shouldn't try to duplicate Google.
I should add that. the function of a paid editor is to write encyclopedic content on topics relevant to their employer, if they are able to do so, not argue that promotional content is encyclopedic . They should submit the content, and let the rest of us decide about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with DGG. I do not expect, ever, an article by a paid editor to be at AfD precisely because they are paid to:
  • know, understand, and implement our policies
  • write good, clean copy
  • avoid any form of advertorial
  • hit the ground running
  • eschew WP:BOMBARD
In short I expect them to write good, clean, well referenced copy. I expect it not be subject to a subsequent deletion process. Their arguing against deletion is ludicrous for a paid editor. Improving the article to seek to ensure it is kept is their job. It is either notable, or it is not. At present it is not. Period. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, DGG Although I am a paid editor, I am also a human being (shocking, I know!). If I see an article I worked on get nominated for deletion due to a perceived lack of notability, and I believe that the nominator has made a mistake in their reasoning and the subject of the article is indeed notable, I am going to defend it. Expecting a paid editor's work to be so perfect that nobody else could even possibly disagree with them seems rather strange to me. And if somebody disagrees with me and wants to delete an article I wrote, then as a human being who values their work, I'm going to try to explain why I value that article as a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be completely silent in such matters. Of course, I will respect the AFD process, and if at the end of the day it turns out I'm wrong, I will try to accept that and move on. But for now, I want my position to at least be properly represented here for the record, which I cannot expect will automatically be done without me. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Timtrent, DGG I was privately told that I'd made a serious mistake earlier, and I want to acknowledge and apologize for that mistake. The formatting of my first comment started with the words "keep" in bold, which I included, thinking it was merely an indicator of the direction of the statement to follow, rather than a vote itself. I was totally wrong about that, and what I did actually indicated I was voting myself, which you accurately pointed out as being deeply inappropriate. I didn't understand what the issue was until now, and I apologize for my earlier defensive tone and misleading inclusion of the bolded format. I've struck out that statement above, and ask the closer not to count my comments as a vote. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) From my perspective you are perfectly entitled to offer the opinion that it be kept as long as (since this is an article for pay) you do that from your paid account and only from that account. I see you did that. As you know you may offer the formal bolded opinion once and once only. I believe you have done that, albeit struck out. I see no objection to your removing the striking out. Authors are allowed their opinion. It would be awful were that not so.
What you may wish to consider is that those who offer rebuttals to every opinion that runs counter to their desires seem not to prevail in these discussions. Less truly is more in AfD discussions. One good arrow fired once with excellent policy based arguments is all one needs. The closing admin will weigh policy based arguments in their close. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for the advice, I'll unstrike my previous strikethrough (and will add a note to the effect that I've done just that). As both you and now also Elemimele have pointed put, less is more here, and I've lowered my chance of success by my long-winded replies. If you don't mind me asking, how do you typically manage to pull off minimalism? This is my first time seriously defending an article at AfD, and I'm finding it very difficult to be concise. What I mean by that (oh god I'm doing it now aren't I) is that either 1) I'll say something, and then people's responses indicate that they misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I want to reply to be more clear about what I intended, or 2) Someone else will say something that I think is incorrect/misguided, and if nobody else has pointed that out (especially if the issue at play is a subtle one), I feel compelled to reply with a technical counter-argument. Regarding 2, I guess what you're saying is that the closer will be competent enough to figure that out on their own, so I don't need to worry about that (though it might give me a lot of anxiety lol), but for 1, the issue is probably on me and my imperfect writing skills, so I don't feel like I can assume even a closer would get what I meant to say if I don't clarify myself.
I've read the AfD guidelines of course, but I still feel rather lost when it comes to social norms here. If I'm breaking any of them now, please forgive me/let me know. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitzilitt (paid) I will respond on your talk page. There is a danger of diverting this discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: (1) because all the information I can find is routine churnalism/interviews/standard promotional press-releases, and (2) because if we don't delete, we send a message that anyone can get their company advertised in Wikipedia merely by interminable polite bludgeoning and wearing everyone down with walls of text. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing in the article and that provided by Cunard. Responding to @HighKing: The most common is to support facts within the article. The other is to establish notability. A "review of the author's experiences" with the *product* does not establish notability of the *company* this criticism of the sources isn't necessarily wrong but ignores an important nuance: our notability guidelines mainly exist to make sure that the articles we have have enough coverage that they can be useful to our readers while being based off of reliable sources. Nit-picking about whether a source covers a product or a corporation isn't productive; it would not make sense to have an article simply on the SudShare product given that the product effectively is the corporation. And no, I don't think damnatio memoriae is warranted for this company either. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between making sure articles are useful (by including information on products for example) and using product reviews as references for establishing notability. Two different tasks, two different objectives. Nit-picking about which references may be used to establish notability is called following the guidelines. If the company is notable (as established by references that meet NCORP) then by all means have a section on the product/service. HighKing++ 20:41, 9 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix

Ebix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article that's mostly about Robin Raina and not about the company. Sources cited are highly suspect, e.g. "Robin Raina Net Worth (2022)". "Raina is known to lead the firm efficiently during the 2008 global financial crash". And so forth. WP:LISTED does not compel us to keep this just because it's publicly traded, and the sources cited are all routine business coverage or not WP:RS at all, leaving little to be said about Ebix. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; not promotional at all: This Hindustan Times article clearly says that it's "a leader in insurance and payment processing software and exchanges". And according to this Business Today article, it is the "only company in Atlanta that has a road named after it: 1 Ebix Way". Moreover, this company has enough media coverage that your bid to challenge its notability makes your stance completely baseless. If you think this article is written like an advertisement you can certainly use different a tag instead of AfD. Now let others decide. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking into this, and note that the Hindustan Times piece linked above is a by-line-less reprint of an Asian News International piece, with the latter source's reliability being highly contested last time it was discussed; I would not consider it to be an indicator of notability in this context. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. This is a company on the NASDAQ with a current market cap of over $900 million USD. Suggest tagging with appropriate improvement tags. Ebix Smartclass has also been marked for deletion so perhaps merging it to this page would be a start.Gusfriend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above - needs work, but no need for WP:TNT. FalconK if you could tag the areas you have a problem with, I'm happy to work on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the irrelevant stuff but my main problem with it is that there's so little to say about the company other than that it's a business, has a bunch of money, and exists. I'm having some trouble with WP:CORPDEPTH on this one. FalconK (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the evidence for notability? FalconK (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To examine the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 8 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Everybody

Where's Everybody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, unnotable. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 5 February 2022 (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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, even the ones added by NemesisAT which were more-of-the-same "advertorials with no accredited journalist" articles. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:22, 8 February 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Ready

Fight Ready (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cassiopeia talk 22:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are from UFC which is not and independent sources for the owner of the gym are related/affiliated to UFC. The rest of the sources are about other fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I went back and reviewed the sources and decided they weren't quite up to WP's requirements. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a gym therefore a corporation/organization. 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. What we have here are a lot of sources where the gym is mentioned-in-passing due to one or other of their members or based on people affiliated with the company. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:29, 7 February 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Lab

MMA Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are from UFC which is not and independent sources for the owner of the gym are related/affiliated to UFC. The rest of the sources are about other fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it helps, I have removed all UFC.com sources and replaced them. -Imcdc (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. 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. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'll admit I usually comment on biographies and not companies, so I may not have a good grasp on WP:NORG. Would someone please explain why these sources don't qualify towards meeting WP:GNG? [36],[37], [38], [39] I admit they're not all great references, but they're not nothing either. Admittedly, interviews take up a large portion of these articles. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Papaursa: All the four sources there are considered not independent and not reliable because the article info are from the subject(s) who related to the MMA Lab in the from of "interview" which means the info are getting from the involved /affiliated subject even thought the website is not affiliated to the MMA lab. Sources need to be independent, reliable and covered the subject in depth (not the ppl but the company since this is a org/company article (the gym) in depth and in lenght and not only passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 22:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not necessary true. I checked and all the 4 sources provided by Papaursa have commentary other than quotations or interviews. The parts that are interview or quotations cannot be used, but journalist commentary can be used. It is presumed that when a journalist writes an article based on an interview that it has been validated and no longer primary, so even if the original info was from an interview, but it is not presented in an interview format, then it can be used. Caphadouk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above are interview peices. If the interview section is a small amount then that can be used. But this is not the case. Info gathered are from the subject who related to the article in mentioned. Notability need secondary sources - "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" When the sources info are based on interview and amount a great deal from the person related to the article then it is not an independent source. This is a corp/company article and NCORP is one of the very strict notability in Wikipedia and not a mma gym would just be notable in regardless there are a few good fighters train there. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 10 February 2022 (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. Clear sense that this fails GNG and the Music argument hasn’t moved later voters. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mylene Sheath

AfDs for this article:
The Mylene Sheath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[40] seems to be a passing mention. I found [41] which also seems to be a passing mention. Sikonmina (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one reliable source to the article. One more would prove notability. Sikonmina (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the steps you should be doing before nominating an article for deletion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are steps people should be doing before they create an article. Sikonmina (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to WP:AGF; my intention isn't to violate policy. You, however, are casting aspersions and that isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see the editor has turned a new leaf. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold 3rd relist, as the last AFD also resulted in a no consensus close. Are there enough sources to pass WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC suggests that "one of the more notable indies" can be judged by the importance of its roster and its length of operation, which is a more concrete guideline than NCORP (and, being closer to the expertise area, is more suitable). There's also some utility in being able to tie these artists together - they share an important attribute, of being on the same label, and without the label article acting basically as a list fulcrum, the artists would have to be linked together each on each page, which is awkward from an information-organization standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles Which takes me back to, well, what I said. This is useful but NMUSIC is just a supplement to GNG and in theory, GNG has precedence - NMUSIC just says "this kind of entity is likely to meet GNG so please do a throughout BEFORE"... And said BEFORE is not yielding sources showing WP:SIGCOV coverage, is it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there are lots of articles (I can find dozens) of the format "x band signs to Mylene Sheath", which is typically taken here to be SIGCOV of the band rather than the label, and I'm not really sure that's the right way to think about them. There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label, but I've always argued that is not a reasonable expectation for this sort of notability question. As I noted, there are some practical utilities that are afforded by label articles when thought of basically as list articles; another way we could handle the info-org problem would be convert it to a category, but I'm sure someone would eventually bring that to CfD if there's no article to support the category. Ultimately, I guess the way I look at it is, this is a label that released some genuinely important music, and that is of encyclopedic interest; if our guidelines are preventing us from giving a robust account...well, that's what WP:IAR is for, no? Chubbles (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your argument: does WP:MUSIC have any guidance on notability? Sikonmina (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, "There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label". Wait, so there are some? Links? Also, SIGCOV aside, do we have any assessments? Did anyone say that this label is important or such? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 16 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1070908326"