Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP:DS/CO

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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!} 03:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The subject appears to be a WP:ROTM startup and the refs only provide routine coverage. Fundraising rounds of $1 million and $3 million are nowhere close to noteworthiness. Teemu.cod (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Within the article, the sources seem to all by passing mentions or WP:PRIMARY, with the exception of Inc42. My own research did not turn up significant secondary coverage, with the majority of articles appearing to be press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:39, 31 August 2023 (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 Interplay Entertainment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interplay Discovery

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

Interplay Discovery was a program launched in 2010 by Interplay Entertainment for independent developers at a time when the company was publishing its first games since 2004. Under the program, the company published five games in total. A search for "Interplay Discovery" on search engines reveals little about the program, and it seems that the program would never be talked about again since 2011, when the last game under the program was released. I think this article is doomed to remain a permastub. However, I think the program would prove excellent for the Interplay Entertainment article since it involves the company reentering the gaming arena and trying to reclaim its former status as a reputable publisher, even if the attempt turned out to be short-lived. Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Interplay Entertainment. Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Timur9008 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interplay Entertainment, concur with earlier reviewers. - Indefensible (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (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 14:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safetica

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find the usual product reviews and listings in non-selective business profiles, but nothing in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2023 (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!} 04:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helmes AS

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. It's been several years but there are still not several independent reliable sources satisfying WP:CORP. JFHJr (㊟) 04:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Estonia. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all I can find [1], about some unsavory business dealings they were involved with. Nothing upon which we can build an article. Article as it reads now is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A peacockery-laden article about a company, created by a single-day account a couple of months after a previous instance was deleted at AfD. Searches find announcement-based coverage of new contracts, acquisitions of similar firms in Lithuania and Belarus, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither these nor involvement in the case mentioned above is sufficient to demonstrate notability; the previous AfD consensus should stand. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself is blatantly promotional, and the cited sources are promotional pieces, entry on database, and company's own websites. While the company was mentioned in some websites and articles, none of those are in-depth coverage sufficient in proving its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatantly promotional, non-notable, and unsourced. DrowssapSMM (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tines

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine coverage, PR, monies raised. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a promotional piece. WP:NOTPROMO —siro χ o 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate any feedback on how to make it less promotional while highlighting the aspects that make this company notable. Salsakesh (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No demonstration of notability as this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and added further references, could you take a look? Salsakesh (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of references was not the issue. Quality of the references is. There needs to be at least three references that have all three of these qualities: reliable, independent of the topic, and significant coverage of the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these do you feel is not being met? I strive to include only reliable sources in all articles I write, including this one. Most of the sources included provide significant coverage of the topic. Independence can be somewhat subjective, but I would consider sources such as The Times of London, Irish Times, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WIRED magazine, Security Week, etct to be independent sources. Salsakesh (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a notable Irish tech company in the no-code space with many WP:RS references and coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I will go through the references later. scope_creep^Talk 07:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit In addition to the many tech industry sources like this one from VentureBeat (plus the TechCrunch links about their funding rounds), there is this piece by The Irish Times that definitely counts as significant coverage, there is this piece by The Times. Those are both real newspapers not tech industry publications. The article needs significant editing to be less promotional, but there are sufficient sources for meeting the core guidelines of WP:CORP. Steven Walling • talk 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are independent. The Times fail WP:SIRS. They are not idependent of the company. The Irish Times is also not independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH i.e. the "monies raised" clause. Its using company stats. The Venture beat article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH monies raises. Techcrunch is junk ref. Non-rs. There is a reason why these kinds of generic reference no longer are considered value, because they areso generic. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017-2018 by Tony Ballioni and that group specifically to remove these type of generic references. scope_creep^Talk 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is extremely bizarre, verging on outright lying, unless you really don't know anything about these sources. The Times and The Irish Times are fully independent news organizations with an editorial staff that produce daily newspapers. They are not trade industry publications or press release factories. The Irish Times is the newspaper of record for Ireland, where the subject of the article is based. The Times is specifically listed as reliable in our list of perennial sources, as is VentureBeat, when covering businesses and technology. Steven Walling • talk 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about. While the papers are indeed listed in the WP:RSP, they take the advertising dollar as much as any other newspaper. Looking at the Time ref. It states "Hinchy describes the experience as “stressful” but it’s one that set the ball rolling for Tines software. “It really helped shape a lot of what we are building in Tines today,” he says. We are allowing... " It goes on. That is an interview with the company founder. He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. WP:SIRS specifically precludes these types of references, because it is not independent from the company. It can't used to prove notability. What is worse is that your a WMF product manager and administrator on this wikipedia and yet you do not understand current Wikipedia policy around organisations particularly WP:NCORP. If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus. This is the 2nd time I've seen you making statements at Afd that are patently false, that don't seem to show an clear understanding of WP:SECONDARY sourcing and what that actually means. The last time was about month ago. I'm going to look at your contribution at Afd over the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that major newspapers like The Times or The Irish Times publish articles in return for payments like a press release. That's quite simply a baseless conspiracy theory. The consensus view is that newspapers of record are typically some of the most reliable independent sources available, and the coverage here is significant in both cases. Steven Walling • talk 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4]. scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links prove what you just said. One is an ad network, which everyone knows is how newspapers make money and is not the same thing as paid content. The other one is a press release agency. Many journalists get sent press releases every day, but the articles being used as sources here do not include material from any press release. None of those links show that two major newspapers wrote articles in return for payments, direct or indirect. Steven Walling • talk 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a four year old startup. Lets examine the references for the first block.
Ref 1 [5] This is a non-rs and social media link.

Ref 2 [6] Has several interview style paragraphs with photographs of the company.

Ref 3 [7]] Archived at [8] This is an interview with the founder. It is not independent from the business failing WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS SIRS states to establish notability sources must be both Independent and WP:SECONDARY and that each source must be evaluated independently.

Ref 4 [9] Another interview that predominantely discusses funding failing both WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

Ref 5 [10] Profiele style segment in a overall much large article. It discusses comment in the context of no-code development from Hinchy again. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent of the company.
Ref 6 [11] Another interview. Monies raised. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent as its an interview with the founder and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

Ref 7 [12] Its an interview. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND

Ref 8 [13] Monies raised. From a press-release. Names as a unicorn. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 9 [14] Written by Hinchy himself. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 10 [15] Conference paper. Describes a model no-code security architeture with the information take from [16] Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 11 [17] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage.

Ref 12 [18] "Your security game plan is only as good as the information you have to work with" says Hinchy. Trade journal. This is not independent.

Ref 13 [19] Behind a paywall. There is an image of both the founders present which suggests its an interview.

Ref 14 [20] An X of Y article. Profile. Fails WP:SIRS as its not in-depth.

This is a four year old company who have been described as a unicorn. As its a company growing fast it has a large advertising budget. Branding and advertising are a standard way to build your company. But neither advertising nor growth are factors in notability. Only coverage that passes WP:SIRS and there is not a single reference here that passes that criteria. All the information about this company, comes from the company. None of it WP:SECONDARY. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steven Walling and his assessment.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources identified by Steven Walling in this discussion appear to be the type of promotional sources that the WP:NCORP guideline seeks to address, as discussed at WP:ORGCRIT:

Tines, which helps enterprise security teams automate repetitive workflows, raises $26M (VentureBeat, Apr. 8, 2021) - this is a funding announcement, so it is an example of trivial coverage that has insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability, and the source includes substantial quotes from the cofounder Hinchy, so it appears to fail WP:ORGIND, because this source reads as if a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties.
Tines raises $26M Series B for its no-code security automation platform (TechCrunch, Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, but more transparent about churnalism, e.g. "the company notes in today’s announcement," in addition to substantial quotes from Hinchy and attribution to what the "company argues".
Irish cybersecurity start-up Tines valued at $300m after raising $26m (The Irish Times, Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, with substantial quotes from Hinchy, and quotes from Mr Fixel, including “We look forward to supporting [Hinchy] and the Tines team as they continue to scale the business and enhance their product which is beloved by their unmatched customer base,” so this also appears insufficient for WP:ORGIND.

Beccaynr (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator and Beccaynr, and I disagree with Steven Walling. Got nothing of substance to add beyond what they've said. —Alalch E. 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be unfixable promotional content at this time, based on a lack of sufficiently independent and significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Available coverage includes examples of trivial coverage, such as quarterly or annual financial results, capital transaction[s], such as raised capital, non-notable awards received by the organization, and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, while coverage that meets WP:SIRS and could help develop an encyclopedic article has not been identified. Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly WP:PROMOtional and I'm not convinced WP:NCORP is met. The Irish Times article, for instance, is clearly trivial, even if the plublication itself would be okay for other articles. Even if it somehow does pass NCORP WP:TNT is the only solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 29 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaFilings.com

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

Not notable, probably an Advertisement by the company. KnightMight (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see some reliable sources, such as The Hindu Business Line, The Economic Times, Business Standard India, and The New Indian Express, have covered various facets of the company. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As well as the sources mentioned by Mozzcircuit, IndiaFilings has also been covered by The Times of India. Some of the sources in the article seem a little promotional/frivolous, especially the paywalled Economic Times articles, but generally I think this company has just about enough significant reliable coverage to warrant an article, unless non-independence of sources can be proven. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India source is basically the press release from [21] with some VERY minor changes. If this had been pasted into an article here, it would have been reverted and rev-deleted as a copyright violation. It's published on TOI, but it's just a press release. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP. There are zero WP:SIRS sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I checked all in the article (including the ones I removed because they didn't verify attached claims) and did a cursory BEFORE to seek others. The only potential ATD would be a one-sentence merge to DBS Bank#India, but that may be UNDUE. —siro χ o 23:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage outside of routine announcements, publicity and press, interviews, etc. I believe it's not suitable for inclusion at this point in time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks Clears the bar of WP:CORP, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Here are some sources I have found- 1. The Hindu. 2. Economic Times. 3. New Indian Express. 4. Economic Times. 5. New Indian Express. 6. Economic Times.Bekujoq (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source assessment table. —siro χ o 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
TH NARAYANAN V[22]	depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS		~	✘ No
Economic Times, Vinay Dwivedi[23]	as above		~	✘ No
New Indian Express, Praveen Kumar[24]	as above		~	✘ No
Economic Times, Maleeva Rebello[25]	as above			✘ No
New Indian Express, "ANI"[26]	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	~	✘ No
BT, Binu Paul[27]	depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS			✘ No
Business Standard[28]	heavily dependent on business partner		No CORPDEPTH but could be used to add a sentence to DBS Bank § India	✘ No
BW, Resham Suhail[29]	fully an interview with employee			✘ No
Free Press Journal, FPJ Web Desk[30]	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those editors advocating Keep care to respond to the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with source analysis - all coverage reads as a press release. BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the source table above. Most of the sources look like press-release stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All PR sourcing, fails ORGIND/NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per source analysis table by Siroxo. Looks PR sourcing.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{vd}} based on the source analysis and my review of the sources. Too much fluff, not much actual stuff from an independent secondary source. The original work feels like WP:UPE. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTB Electric

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

Notability not established within article. Sources all appear to be press releases. — Trey Maturin™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Trey Maturin™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Salsakesh (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could someone with a reading knowledge of Vietnamese please have a look at the references? To me they mostly look reasonable but some might be press releases as nom said, and some might be promotional. Well-sourced for a short article, but the source independence is going to be the deciding factor. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I nominated this, I ran the sources through Google Translate, which is, obviously, not very good, but was enough to give the gist of the stories.

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 appear to be press releases, paid-for articles or puff pieces. Very promotional language of the "strives to provide the best…" type of thing. Most of the text is repeated in the other 5 articles, and simply describes what the company does (or aims to do in future), which suggests a press release.

3 is a report on a trade show, with a single quote from a director of the company just listing the products they have brought to show. — Trey Maturin™ 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the explanation above. I can't find sources for this business either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for the clarification, agreed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Vietnam and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The lack of any Turkish-language sourcing for a supposedly 40+ year Turkish company is quite telling IMO. In my search for BTB Electric or BTB Elektrik, I only found articles on the Bursa Commercial Exchange Market (Bursa Ticaret Borsası), and absolutely nothing on this company. The trwiki article was speedied 4 days ago based on notability. Given that the Vietnamese sources are promotional, there is no way that this company meets WP:NCORP, which is a guideline that sets the bar really high for for-profit entities. Styyx (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also another interesting note, I tried to read some news stories on their official website (eg. this) and the Turkish used here is anything but natural. I wouldn't believe the person writing this actually knows Turkish. Styyx (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly relevant to the delete discussion, but… yeah. The references to Turkey in the promotional articles used as sources came over as weird, gtranslate's weirdness notwithstanding. I wondered if this was a mistranslation of a place or term in the original language, although that would prove me wrong for how convinced I was/am that the article's creator has a CoI. — Trey Maturin™ 19:55, 22 August 2023 (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!} 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Master Piano Technicians of America

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

I'm unable to find evidence that this association meets N:ORG Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Star Mississippi 02:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing enough to support inclusion. Might want to look at Piano Technicians Guild too. - Indefensible (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, passing mentions in gbooks. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2023 (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!} 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sekthaus Carl Graeger

AfDs for this article:

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

Discussed last summer and restored as a contested PROD. However, as was the case then, I do not see CORP level sourcing here, the German article or via a before. While they no longer make their own wine, it's still produced and sourcing should be accessible if it existed Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, for me lacks significant coverage in current reliable sources. The majority of the references cited are from archival sources or are dated, which raises concerns about the contemporary relevance and notability of the subject. Additionally, there's a limited amount of recent information or ongoing significance to the brand beyond its historical achievements. Also, the quality of old sources is questioned, and seems not to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I found a lot of old ads, a brief discussion that is in the references, a patent, but no WP:SIGCOV. This is an old and small company. A combination that can go either way. I'm definitely open to the idea that there is WP:SIGCOV out there. Just couldn't find it. gidonb (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (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 Illy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FrancisFrancis

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

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTCATALOG - Not a single source found from a BEFORE BrigadierG (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. BrigadierG (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find sources on particular models of their machines, but nothing about the company itself aside from catalogues trying to sell me one of their products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to illy, (or just merge). When we remove the catalogue listings at the bottom, we are left with a few lines about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (but maybe a weak keep with redirect/merge as an alternative to deletion) I'm pondering if there'll ever be enough for a standalone article or if it should be merged into Illy, which is surprisingly short to me so it may fit well. Some sources I found: It must've been something I ate: moderate mention/detail of and a positive review in a food book. Longer articles/reviews in newspapers (there are more capsule/short reviews that exist): [31] &[32] (talking about repairing espresso machine using the author's Francis machine), [33] stand alone review, [34] discussion in the context of Italian artistic things and includes mention of FrancisFrancis!'s plate set. Longer reviews: A 300+ word narrative review of a FrancisFrancis! machine. Mentions/minor case studies in text books/business books: [35], [36], [37]. (Passing reference but interesting to me: FrancisFrancis! on the Will and Grace set.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please voice your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Illy seems to be appropriate as per above Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illy. It's a high threshold for a product to warrant its own article, which is not, in my opinion, met in this instance. There is nothing lost by having a redirect to the company page, which is certainly notable. If the product has sufficient discussion in secondary sources, a small sentence would be fine on that page. However, there is nothing of significance I can see regarding this particular machine that makes a merge vote worthwhile or practicable. The contents are largely not worth copying over. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illy, for the reasons given above. The article as it stands needs a ^{[citation needed]} on almost every line, as it is full of unsupported statements. As for the "Interesting facts" section, interesting for whom? Athel cb (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illy as per ATD, totally agree with the reasons provided above. The references are insufficient for GNG/NCORP criteria in any case. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 5 September 2023 (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. As this is due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing not improved since the previous two nominations. Sources are either press releases, not significant coverage, or a bunch of quotes from the founder and hence not independent content. Consider salting so we don't end up here yet again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A "bunch of quotes" that a journalist felt should be reported in the coverage isn't the same as an interview. The only two sources I see in the current list of sources that might pass GNG are this from CornwallLive and to a lesser extent this from Business Cornwall. The sourcing in this version, as well as the prose, are different from the previously deleted version, which is why I declined the G4 speedy deletion proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing sources fail GNG/NCORP - articles that rely entirely on interviews/quotations without the journalist providing their own opinion/analysis/fact checking/etc fails WP:ORGIND. That said, the Music Distribution Market has been covered by analyst reports and the topic company has been listed as being featured. Analyst reports meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Here's a report from Market Research Guru which covers the topic company in detail at section 9.14. Here's another from Adroit Market Research which includes a section in Chapter 9. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFDs closed as Delete but HighKing, who rarely advocates Keep, is doing so that is worth another week of consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing do you have copies of those reports? Both of those you listed are paywalled. - Indefensible (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was away so only responding now. I have not read the sections on the topic company in those reports - they are paywalled. Analyst reports can either provide short brief mentions of companies in a marketplace (which may be too short or generic for the purposes of establishing notability), or they produce a section on each company which is usually accompanied by an analysis of their offering and positioning. In both examples, a section on the company is included as you can see from the Table of Contents. There is also a report from Allied Market Research which also includes a chapter. I'm happy to stick with my !vote on the basis that the analyst reports exist and I expect them to be sufficiently independent and in-depth, purely based on my experience with analyst reports in the past. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 4 September 2023 (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. Maybe next time check the sources before you nominate the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zymergen

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Reference are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed on the article. For disclosure, I created this article--claiming WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASQ is false, there is no WP:COI. After Scope creep accused me of following them around, I am curious how they found this article. - Indefensible (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails WP:NCORP. It came up the watchlist I think, for some reason. I'll go through the first two blocks of references. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate NCORP, but PROMO and ADMASQ are completely false in this case. Where is the watchlist you refer to, do you mean your personal watchlist? - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see that this article is promotional in style or substance. It suffers from the unfortunate funding-rounds-and-results style that a lot of poorly tended company articles do. But it's a mix of successes and failures. For notability, here are WP:THREE (only the Forbes and Motley Fool articles are cited at present):
The Forbes article, with substantial analysis and reportage sourced from outsiders [38]
Nusqe Spanton, Where Zymergen went wrong: a biomanufacturing perspective for synthetic biology, Manufacturing Chemist (2022). [39]
Motley Fool, This Is Why Zymergen's IPO Was a Huge Success, substantial journalistic analysis not attributable to the company [40]

This Business Journals article would be even better if I could access it, but it's heavily paywalled; based on the visible text its analysis and criticism of the company is based on internal and external sources[41] Oblivy (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 here, is non-rs. We will look at the references in detail later. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you say Motley Fool is non-rs? It’s not listed at WP:RSPSS. Did I miss something? Oblivy (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have enough coverage of its fall and internal issues to meet NCORP in my opinion, a lot of which I added during the last deletion discussion. I'm not sure how it can be considered WP:PROMO at this point, it's overwhelmingly negative because the press coverage over the past few years has more or less been "Why and how it failed". BuySomeApples (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there is a book reference there in the list of source.. Is there any book references available? Another two would sort it out. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 27 August 2023 (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!} 01:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country-Wide Insurance Company

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

Article written by a likely WP:UPE sock farm, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eatdrinkmerry/Archive

In the meantime, a BEFORE turns up nothing here BrigadierG (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. BrigadierG (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any extensive coverage. They have a financial rating [42] and gave Trump's campaign money [43]. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any reference that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reference (reliable source) and notability issue makes it a perfect candidate for deletion! Ekdalian (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to flawed nomination, since many sources exist for this 60-year old company, which I have added to the article (WP:HEY):
"No-fault Insurance Law Ruled 'Constitutional'", (where the company challenged a SCOTUS ruling)

"Insurers Ranked by Complaints"

"Country-Wide Under Fire From State Insurance Dept"

"State Ranks Best, Worst Automobile Insurers"

"State Revises Ranking of Insurance Carriers"

"A.M. Best Revises Outlook to Negative for New York's Country-Wide", (a trade journal that goes into depth about the company)

As the situation stands now, almost every sentence in the article is backed up by a third-party independent source, and the promotional tone has been completely excised. StonyBrook _babble 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I think of these, only the last one is a plausible claim to notability. The additional source search is greatly appreciated, but even by the standards of the time, rankings updates is likely WP:ROUTINE and their involvement in a legal case has a WP:INHERITED issue given that they're only mentioned superficially there. I don't have an account to access the last source so it's difficult to comment. BrigadierG (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open-access link: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2017/07/12/457385.htm — StonyBrook _babble 04:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think this coverage is also routine. A change in rating is similar to reporting on a change in stock price which is explicitly covered as not implying notability. BrigadierG (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review recently discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notwithstanding StonyBrook's diligent work. This company is on the edge of notability. As insurance companies go, it's small: just 250 employees and sales are limited to the New York City area. What might make it notable are all the negative reports and legal issues associated with this company. I turned up >50 using the Wikipedia Library. From a Wikipedia procedural standpoint, while collectively they paint a picture of the company, they're all small news chunks and that's not good enough for our unusually stringent requirements for any articles about companies. Otherwise, I'd say "keep" because there are certainly enough reliable sources to support an reliable article. Final comment: I would not buy their insurance.

Ping me if something promising turns up to establish notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 28 August 2023 (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 21:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus Nova

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

Was looking to de-orphan this article and realized its had notability tags since 2016. I couldn't find any sigcov on a WP:BEFORE, and it's an American company so I probably didn't miss any sources in other languages. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a Wall Street Journal reference but appears to be more of a routine announcement of an investment. Everything else is business directory listings and brief mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP no independent sources with any depth. Skynxnex (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP also I believe fails WP:SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antimetal

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the provided sources are a WSJ article about AI in cloud services more generally and only briefly mentions Antimetal, and a TechCrunch article (RSP entry) that reads like a lightly edited press release. Searching online, I was able to find blogs and churnalism coverage, but nothing significant; nothing on Google Scholar or Books; I searched for terms like "Antimetal" tech, "Antimetal" AI, "Antimetal" company to avoid the many results about "antimetal" in other contexts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom; article also feels slightly self-promotional. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find RSs besides the WSJ and TechCrunch ones. SWinxy (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG/NCORP and only serves as promotional at this stage, TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much notable coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (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 12:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morabito (brand)

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

Do not believe this passes WP:NORG. No references, no third parrty coverage. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The versions in history are borderline G11. Even if closed under WP:NOQUORUM, it should not be restored on request. There does not appear to be any content not taken from the company about page, which defaults to Japanese for some reason, though it does seem to be paraphrased enough to avoid a G12. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 26 August 2023 (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 01:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Television Channel

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

Page for a fictitious television channel. The page itself is a copy of the Chapman Entertainment page with the dates and years changed. The page was created by an IP editor in 2020 and i'm surprised such a thing hasn't been taken down. Luigitehplumber (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete suggested I don't see that SPEEDY has been tried, but it's definitely an article from a fantasy TV vandal, and that it should've been deleted in draftspace. I'm not going to apply the SD tag myself, but if someone else would like to, I'd support it. Nate • (chatter) 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears the only reason this ended up in mainspace to start with is because that IP editor created it in the talk namespace, and it was moved by another editor (presumably in good faith). Had it been created in draftspace as IPs are supposed to do, it likely wouldn't have been moved by any legitimate editor (and certainly not as an AfC submission). I do concur with MrSchimpf that G3 may well apply here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the sleuthing above. Fictional topics should be speedy deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 24 August 2023 (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 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Europe

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

Does not pass WP:NORG - very little in the way of secondary coverage. Maintenance tag since 2014. Qcne (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 18 August 2023 (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!} 04:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F650 Supertruck

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

Advertisement page for a vehicle customisation firm. No evidence of notability. All the sources cited are random YouTube videos (two of which are from the firm's own corporate YouTube channel), with the exception of one webpage "alarm ministries", which on inspection is just a gibberish SEO spamsite stuffed with keywords but with no actual content Little Professor (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for the company. Only sources I find are mentions of a truck getting involved in an accident [44], [45], that was branded for a video game event. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article mentions several publications that have written about the company's vehicles: "In 2006 the company's trucks were featured on automotive magazines like Rides magazine, Poker Runs America, Xtreme Boats, Dupont Registry, Exotic Car Buyers Guide." I added this reference: Colby, Eric (2018-11-25). "Living Life to the Fullest". Poker Runs America. Retrieved 2023-08-18. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mistitled promotional article about a company, WP:NOTPROMO. Does not meet WP:CORP. —siro χ o 07:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Colby, Eric [46]	Heavily dependent on founder interview and other related people		~ doesn't meet CORPDEPTH	✘ No
Doug DeMuro video		marketing channel for car auction website		✘ No
Harry Walsh[47]		"welcome to my blog"[48]	Nonsense Quickly after briefing the introduction, the efficiency of the automotive and the engine capability must be reviewed as these are probably the most targeted parts through which the reader is . Also, to retain and to enhance the reading of the reader to the weblog, the principle options must be narrated first.	✘ No
Extreme supertruck videos (2)	~~seems to be~~ (updated per below) definitely by the company	UGC at best		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

To add to the above table, the Extreme Supertruck videos are definitely from the company themselves. The URL linked to in the Extreme Supertruck youtube channel (extremesupertruck.com) just redirects to the company's website (f650pickups.com) Little Professor (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional and it fails WP:CORP. A Google search for "F650 Supertruck" shows nothing significant. FlutterDash344 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2023 (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 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Machine Industries

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Zero non-promotional references. Maintenance tag since 2013. No significant coverage on Google at all. Qcne (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. All I find are in industry trade publications ([49]), which don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:NCORP. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2023 (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 12:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effortel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been a poorly sourced, promotional piece since its creation in 2010. No evidence that the company is notable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is more than just a regular non-notable company. Darron4 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Darron4 and 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 above. This article's only citations are internal, no evidence of it being noteworthy, an most substantive editing has been done by someone with a COI. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:37, 16 August 2023 (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!} 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpich Character Dolls

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

I've done my own WP:BEFORE and the most substantial coverage I can find is this. I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP. There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient publicity in the byline media: [50], [51], [52]. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable. The last source listed above (The Advocate) is excellent. This source is not bad [53] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [54] [55]. There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [56]. There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [57][58]. The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion. —siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for. I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to. Liz, does it matter if even I agree with the !keep voters at this point? Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (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 Guttman Community College. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation

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

I am unable to find evidence this foundation meets N:ORG. This piece from the Times about the new community college is GNG/ORG level coverage, but it's mostly about the school, not the Foundation. The rest in the article and found online is press releases announcing their gifts. They're an active Foundation, but do not appear to be notable. I don't think a redirect to Guttman Community College is particularly helpful to the reader, but not against it as an ATD. The article has existed for about ten years so think it merits more than BLAR. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and New York. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guttman Community College where it could be condensed down to a sentence or two. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Guttman Community College?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guttman Community College - looks to be the best option as per ADT. Although this book provides some information about the foundation I don't think it is enough. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 25 August 2023 (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 Parques Reunidos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Entertainment

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

I suggest merging Palace Entertainment into Parques Reunidos, as Palace Entertainment always was or has become an unncessary spinoff. 90% of the source is already rehashed at the target. The question here is NOT NOTABILITY so there is no need to delete Palace Entertainment or to look for sources! RATHER, the question is that of information governance. Thank you all for considering how each one of our articles could become sensible to carry so articles won't overlap and insult the intelligence of the reader! gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that Palace Entertainment, while probably still operational as an intermediate holding company, has been fully integrated into Parques Reunidos. For example, there is no longer separate web presence for Palace Entertainment. gidonb (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Spain, and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really ought to be a proposed merge as described at WP:MERGEPROP rather than a deletion proposal Garuda3 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Palace Entertainment page's notability is justified due to its historical value and long list of property ownership with dozens of tourist properties having their own Wikipedia pages. The issue with multiple reliable citations is still there and the continent is not easily verifiable. However, the chance is that some books, magazines, etc contain the necessary information. If merging, much information should be removed due to lack of sufficient reliable citations. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I saw this on the WP:APARKS tab. It may be more appropriate to start a discussion via WP:MERGEPROP rather than WP:AFD per the nomination. AFD's are usually for deleting articles not meeting our notability criteria. If there is a belief the subject has notability but possibly a lack of information it should either be improved or merged if indeed the subject is the same as the target article. I would suggest closing the AFD and starting a discussion on the talk page if that was the intention. Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:03, 20 August 2023 (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, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per nom. This should have been proc closed and taken to PAM, but we're here, so... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom per ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 23 August 2023 (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. If the article creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or request this at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Capital Advisors

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

Does not meet the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA needs to be considered here, which is evident in this reference from the India Times and this reference in Businessworld. Reviewing WP:ORGCRIT, none of the references used on this page or any that I was able to find in search meet that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and have multiple references from reliable sources like Economic Times, LiveMint, Business Standard, DNA India, The Hindu to verify same, providing few reference ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13].^[14] The Article can be improved but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Has court filing references of Delhi High Court and one supporting reference. ^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18] DSN18 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the creator of this page I am assuming you have done a thorough check of the references. Did you review WP:NEWSORGINDIA and compare the references? For instance, the Economic Times reference has no byline and written like a promotional piece, LiveMint is openly selling articles on Fiverr, etc. Can you show me which ones you cited specifically meet WP:SIRS? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41, Yes. I have thoroughly checked the references, You can check few references like Economic Times Reference, Business World Reference, hotelierindia.com reference, Business Standard Reference(1) and Reference (2).

Also, reference for the Delhi high court case filing against OYO Rooms and Court filing Reference 2 ~~which can be said to meet WP:SIRS in itself~~. Also provided supporting Economic Times reference and Indian Kanoon reference for court filings. DSN18 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first two references you gave as examples and stopped because both of them are not written under editorial oversight. Also, if you are stating that a court filing meets WP:SIRS, then you missed the example provided which states, "The court filing is significant and reliable (in that the court record is a verified account of a legal action being taken) – but not secondary (court filings are primary sources) or independent (they are written by the parties to the legal action, which have a vested interest in the outcome)." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41, what about the Business Standard Reference 1 and Refernece 2. Also, do check The Hindubusinessline reference and livemint reference and This Economic Times Reference. Yes, i agree to your reply and checked that, Gave court reference as "The court filing is significant and reliable". DSN18 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you agree that court cases cannot be used to establish notability under WP:ORGCRIT correct?

The other references you provided are what we consider routine announcements (funding, lawsuit, expansion, etc.). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, i agree that court case cannot be used as the only reference for notability, but it is considered significant and reliable. All the other references provided are from reliable sources and proves notability, may be you can consider few as routine announcements but mentions in multiple reliable sources has some importance right. References provided are all from reliable sources and verifies notability. consider this reference too. DSN18 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are going in circles. This reference you just provided falls under those listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The byline is "Online Desk" which indicates it was not staff written and has no editorial oversight. For the other comment, routine announcements and mentions do not add up to significant coverage. We can use mentions and routine announcements for content on the page, but not to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, Consider following references which might clear your doubts regarding notability. Reference 1 (Editor:Sakshi Singh, ET), Reference 2 (by Staff Writer of Hotelierindia), Reference 3 (by Shally Seth Mohile, rediff.com) ,Reference 4 (by Bond, Hotelierindia) and Reference 5 (by Forlin Mendez, voyagersworld.in). DSN18 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand NCORP and especially the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Ref1 is based on an announcement by the topic company, it is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. It is PR. I can find other regurgitated articles on the same topic which contain the same information such as this in Travel Trends, this in hospibuz, this in Todays Traveller, etc. Ref 2 is also PR. Here's another version of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 3 relies entirely on information provided by the topic company and their partners, is not "Independent Content", is not even about the topic company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Ref 4 is more PR - here's another copy of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 5 yes another announcement - again here's another copy of the same thing, fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Noesis Capital Advisors Satyadeo Hospitality Announce the Acquisition of Golden Tulip". Economic Times.
^ "Noesis Hotel in 2032 report summarises trends in the hospitality sector". Economic Times.
^ "Noesis propels hospitality sector in MMR region with 10 hotel tie-ups". Economic Times.
^ "NOESIS revolutionises hospitality infrastructure in Mumbai Metropolitan Region with unprecedented hotel tie-ups". Business World.
^ "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominates mid-market hotel space in India". www.hotelierindia.com.
^ "Mid-sized hotels on aggressive expansion drive as occupancy, rates zoom". Business Standard.
^ "Red carpet for leisure travellers: Hotels look to add 20,000 rooms". Business Standard.
^ "Distressed deals in hospitality biz on the rise". Livemint.
^ "Mozambique's Masa group to buy Mumbai hotel project from Aristo Realty Developers". Livemint.
^ "Wyndham's India partner picks majority stake in Kolkata hotel". DNA India.
^ "Lemon Tree takes long lease route to enter Banjara Hills". DNA India.
^ "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominating mid-market hotel space in India". hospitalitybizindia.com.
^ "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.
^ "Hospitality industry players remain resilient amid lukewarm investor interest". The Hindu BusinessLine. 24 April 2023.
^ NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.
^ NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.
^ "Noesis Capital Advisors vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors on 12 April, 2022". indiankanoon.org.
^ "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NORG, with a careful consideration of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. In my review of the sources provided above, only one (voyagers) passed WP:SIRS, and even that is only reporting of a routine business transaction. Longhornsg (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg, notability is notability wether its in one or two resources. you agreed that it passes WP:SIRS in above but still you voted it as Delete?, Let me clarify and help you reconsider. I agree, You can consider few references to come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not all right. Mentions in many notable sources has no importance? and Please recheck this Reference 1 and Reference 2 which also passes notability. These references don't come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as they are not additional supplements or so, Please check examples of WP:NEWSORGINDIA before considering anything. I agree the article may need improvement but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 isn't about the company, but mentions them. Ref 2 is in a trade journal, which we don't consider as notable; we could use these sources if there were other, strong sourcing available, but there isn't. We can't hang our hat on those references, without a stronger base. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are about routine business dealings, the only green sources per sourcebot are about a hotel being sold, seems related, but isn't specifically about this business enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with *each* source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. These sources are routine business announcements and PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (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. Absent disagreement, I'm going with HighKing's source analysis and that this requires NCORP level sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Air Venezuela

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

Lacks independent sources and coverage.

A Google search finds no coverage what so ever. Kaseng55 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Venezuela. Kaseng55 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG: [59][60][61][62][63]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

El Carabobeno repeats information provided in a radio interview by the president of the company and has no other information, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Also insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
Sumarium article discusses the exact same radio interview and this article fails NCORP criteria for the same reason as above
El Diario article - same radio interview, same failure. It is also only 2 sentences and the second sentence is devoted to a quote from the president.
Banca y Negocios article - same as above. Fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
800 Noticias same failures as above.

Notable that all of these articles report on the same interview, most received the information from the radio broadcaster, all are dated within a day of each other, all fail ORGIND/CORPDEPTH.

I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the proposed source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 26 August 2023 (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 source analysis seems compelling and correctly applies the right policy. The delete argument is therefore the most compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcarga

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

1. Lacks independent sources. A Google search found no coverage of the airline, just self published sources or press releases. One of the website which I thought was independent is aircargonews.com, however after reading it fully, I was thinking that this was just a press release and not a news release. I tried everything I could to improve the article.

2. The "History" section is unsourced. Even a Google search couldn't find any mention of that. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Venezuela. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG: [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of these new sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz: If I understand correctly, would you like more details regarding the references content? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NoonIcarus, that would be helpful. But the point I was trying to make when I wrote the relisting comment is that we needed more participants here to express their point of view on the sources you found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Ohh, alright. Many thanks! Please let me know if more information is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second and last of NoonIcarus' sources are passing, but the others do seem to be SIRS. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

ElNacional (first article) is 3 sentences, one of which is devoted to a quote from the president of the group. Insufficient content to meet CORPDEPTH
Elnacional (second article) discusses issues relating to customs declarations between USA and Venezuelan and relies *entirely* on information provided by the president of the topic company. It also lacks in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 1) discusses a complaint against the company by their workers but it does not provide sufficient information *about the company*, fails CORPDEPTH
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 2) also discusses a complaint, fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons.
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 3) also discusses a complaint, also fails CORPDEPTH
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 4) also discusses a complaint, same failure to meet CORPDEPTH
La Libertad article is a report that an investigation was opened into an incident involving one of the topic company's planes. It doesn't discuss the company in detail, fails CORPDEPTH
Caracol article discusses the impact to the operations of the airport in Bogotá due to an incident involving one of the topic company's aircraft. Fails CORPDEPTH as above.

None of those sources come close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. It isn't about finding mention of the company in a Google search, we need substantial independent weighty opinion/analysis/etc written by someone unaffiliated to the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A complaint" seems like an oversimplification for La Verdad de Vargas' articles. They talk about several labour disputes, including one instance where the workers went on without a bonus paycheck for at least five months. The articles also include a protest of at least 150 workers for similar reasons, lack of severance payment, and other delayed payments, information that can be added to the article. From what I understand, coverage about the workers is coverage about the company as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who talks about labour disputes? Only the workers. Interviews and quotes from the workers, nothing else. The workers are not "unaffiliated to the subject" which is required by ORGIND anyway. Even leaving that aside, my summary is accurate because the focus of all 4 LVdV articles are labour dispute complaints but no in-depth information in any of those articles about the company. There's nothing wrong with using these sources to support facts in an article but we require must more from sources that are to be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 25 August 2023 (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!} 21:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yubi

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

Non-notable finance company, sourcing is in non-RS or simply funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia does not like fundraising or interview coverage but what is there should be enough in aggregate to support in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't analyse sources "in aggregate" as per WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 23 August 2023 (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, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage and independence required by WP:ORGCRIT in the available sources. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:25, 23 August 2023 (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. The official closure is "No consensus". But I can see the possibility, in the future, of an editor Merging or Redirecting this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BentallGreenOak

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

Non-notable investment company, seems to be affiliated with SunLife, which could perhaps be a merge target. I can only find PR pieces about them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see:
- Ex-M.Stanley bankers launch new property venture (Reuters)
- The Bengal GreenOak merger was ‘like two puzzle pieces coming together” (PERE)
  - PERE covers the primary private equity real estate world with a circulation of 35,000. It's not dependent on ads or press releases; subscriptions cost $3000+

These provide substantial explanations of the company's business.

BentallGreenOak is huge - they manage $47 billion worth of real estate.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only coverage are WP:ROUTINE press releases and the like. Andre🚐 04:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those 2 articles are press releases -- why did you say that?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read ROUTINE, it includes articles that are just press announcements of mergers and the like. Andre🚐 21:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read ROUTINE. I disagree with your assessment. These provide in-depth explanations of the company's activities.

Why do you really want to get rid of this article?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see how the the reuters article starts with a location, date, source (e.g. LONDON, Aug 2 (Reuters))? That's how you know its PR. Here's the announcement from Tetragon and you can see the Reuters article regurgitates it - fails ORGIND. ~~The Pere article though is good enough to meet NCORP criteria as it contains in-depth opinion/analysis.~~ On another read-through, no, the author uses a technique of summarising what has been said which was made clear by the included quotes later in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an enormous firm that do direct commercial lending across the UK and Ireland for real estate transactions. Press Up Entertainment and Paddy McKillen among the clients Here. Its among the Top 50 lenders into property in Europe, almost all of the rest have a Wikipedia page. [72]Financefactz (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there are several concerns regarding its notability and compliance with Wikipedia's standards:

General Notability: Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a standalone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although the article mentions various acquisitions and investments made by BGO, and the above editors indicated some possible reliable sources it does not provide enough significant independent and secondary sources to establish its notability beyond basic facts. --VertyBerty (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Was Sun Life Financial the possible Merge target you had in mind Oaktree b?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, right now looking like a No Consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sun Life Financial. Sometimes even billion-dollar companies seem to fail the notability criteria. I'm unable to locate any substantial significant articles about the company or analyst reports that provide in-depth information. I'm surprised HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 6 September 2023 (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. For me, this will be a textbook case of an AFD discussion that evolved over weeks of discussion. Many AFDs I see are basically decided in the first 48 hours after an article is nominated but this discussion really needed more time to consider the article subject with supporters on different sides making good contributions to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi

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

Appears non-notable, most of the sourcing used, while in RS, is about other things and mention this firm in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Oaktree b, could you please provide a source evaluation?

I'll attempt it, most sources are pay-walled Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've skipped over some sources, due to formatting above (I only counted 12, but there are more than that).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Blomberg News (June 16, 2023)	appears un-connected	appears un-connected	Pay-walled	? Unknown
Blomberg news (May 26, 2022)	appears un-connected	pay-walled	pay-walled	? Unknown
LA Review of Books	writers appear un-connected	appears reliable	good half to third of the article is about this enterprise	✔ Yes
Politico	RS per wiki table [73]	reliable source	article is about the company seeking market regulator approval	✔ Yes
CNBC	appears un-connected	I have no concerns	~ short article, but talks about the company	~ Partial
The Information	paywalled	paywalled	paywalled	? Unknown
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
Forbes	unsure, from a Forbes contributor	Forbes contributors	good half of the article about the firm	? Unknown
NPR	not known	not known	podcast, unable to listen currently	? Unknown
Blomberg News (April 20, 2023)	paywalled	paywalled	paywalled	? Unknown
Tribune de Geneve	paywalled	paywalled	paywalled	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, we have 2 good sources, one meh source, rest I'm unable to evaluate due articles being paywalled. Pro Tip: Don't reply to the comment when using a source table, it doesn't display correctly and you have to fiddle-fart around with the table. Argh. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work currently and don't want to start blasting a podcast from NPR for all to hear. I'm not really seeing notability with the two sources above. Almost, but not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. No need for the NPR podcast, I should've specified that it's a "source to consider" rather than something to evaluate for the source assessment table.

Here are gift links that will allow you to read the Bloomberg articles: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events, A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything, Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan

For the Fortune article (From Lil Nas X to the climate, Kalshi wants to let investors bet on it all), disable Javascript and you'll be able to access it.

These two articles are not behind a paywall:

This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered. Mooonswimmer 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable per Mooonswimmer's refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but should be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is not a PR placement.Masckarpone (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear to be trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release. Article is written promotionally. Cool idea for a company, which I have actually heard of and played around with, but probably not passing WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at the present time. Andre🚐 04:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source assessment of the articles I linked above? And which sources are press releases?
Regarding the promotional tone, I agree that the bit about being a competitor to PredictIt could be worded (or removed entirely), but I don't see how the article is written promotionally? Please provide suggestions on what to tone down on, what to rephrase, and what is best removed entirely. Mooonswimmer 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is day to day grist of the mill stuff like taking a press release and writing a puff piece about it on a blog. You can tell when it's stuff like "A New X Will Release a New Y" without that thing having actually happened yet. Basically a routine product announcement or announcement of new business opportunities such as raising money, announcing a new hire etc., do not go to notability. See also WP:SIGCOV. WP:LASTING It's true that the Bloomberg pieces, as a whole, constitute a fairly in-depth profile on the company. Politico, Forbes, and Techcrunch definitely feel routine to me. The rest, I guess you could make the argument, and maybe we should. It seems that they are largely about this one event, namely the CFTC approving prediction markets to operate. If that is the only notable aspect I think it is a fail of WP:NCORP. You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine. I will admit it's close and I could change my mind if perhaps, there was a reliable journal article, book, or academic source. Andre🚐 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg (article #1, article #2)

The Information (article)

Tribune de Geneve (article)

CNBC (article)

Fortune (article)

Los Angeles Review of Books (article)

Articles on companies are not my strong suit, but I believe that these 7 comprehensive in-depth articles published by independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This NPR segment is also worth taking a look at.

I believe the TechCrunch, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal articles only partially contribute to notability as these types of pieces constitute relatively routine coverage considering they were published in the early stages of the company. There are plenty of other reliable sources that discuss Kalshi in-depth but mostly within the context of the recent CFTC political trading proposal, so I am not counting these articles towards GNG.

It is also worth noting that Kalshi is one of only a few designated contract markets in America ("a regulatory classification that puts Kalshi in the same bucket as historic derivatives exchanges like the CME Group-owned Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the former New York Board of Trade, known today as ICE Futures U.S.") and is the first and only federally regulated exchange for trading on real-world events. As "gimmicky"/"promotional" as it sounds, I think it has some significance. Mooonswimmer 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this promotional and I'm assuming paid-for article. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Most sources are obviously press release churnalism. - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloomberg (article #1, article #2)
- The Information (article)
- Tribune de Geneve (article)
- CNBC (article)
- Fortune (article)
- Los Angeles Review of Books (article)
Could you please provide an evaluation of these sources? Articles on companies aren't my forte, but I would have assumed that 5+ comprehensive, in-depth articles published in independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

"promotional". It would be greatly appreciated if you could reword, remove, or point out any material you deem promotional. I see how the "PredictIt competitor" part could be seen as promotional but I need some further guidance. Your help in toning down the article would be appreciated.

"assuming paid-for". I regret to hear that that's what you assume, especially considering I spent hours creating what I thought was a well-written, balanced, and well-sourced article, but that is not the case. This is a company from my city, which currently runs the only regulated platform in a field I'm very interested in (betting on real-world events), and which I have read about very often lately in the context of their election trading proposal. It has been on my list for quite some time and I assumed the available coverage was more than enough. Mooonswimmer 20:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references listed above by Mooonswimmer. In addition, there are more listed on the company's Y Combinator profile: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/kalshi. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful if those editors who are arguing that the sourcing consists of press releases would review the sources offered by User:Mooonswimmer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY, sources have been located that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Weak Delete probably WP:TOOSOON. I'll preface my !vote by pointing out that a lot of the coverage is recent. For example on June 12 2023, the topic company submitted a selection of self-certified contracts to the CFTC which effectively would allow companies to "bet" on the outcome elections. This has generated "coverage" and "news" and we're faced with a couple of questions. First, is the coverage about the proposed "product" (i.e. the contract) or about the company. And second, if its about the company, is it "in-depth" and "Independent Content". With one exception, none of the sources are convincing and appear to simply summarise events to date without offering any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. At this time I'm unable to locate any other source which meets the criteria and we require "multiple sources". I'm open to changing my mind if another source is eventually located. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lengthy discussion about sources - unroll if want to read and/or contribute

Not that recent, we are talking about coverage over the last few years. Did you also review the sources on the Y Combinator profile? - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source assessment table would be appreciated.

I intentionally picked out sources that don't really focus on the Kalshi’s recent submission of congressional control contracts, and avoided the more routine coverage published shortly after the company's inception. Mooonswimmer 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother building a source assessment table because there isn't a template for GNG/NCORP, but I've looked in detail at every source. I started a long response but I'm trying to avoid writing long responses where unnecessary. If you like, pick a source you think meets NCORP and I'll tell you why IMHO it doesn't. Also a Y Combinator profile would not contain "Independent Content" seeing as its written by the company (the second sentence even starts with the words "We built Kalshi....") and Y Combinator is involved with the topic company as its incubator. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think @Indefensible meant was the articles listed on the Y Combinator profile, but I've already included the ones I believe meet GNG/NCORP.

We can start with the first article I offered: A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything

The article is from Bloomberg, a reputable and reliable publication, and qualifies as a secondary, independent source, as it is authored by respected journalists unrelated to the company. The content's significance and coverage seem to align with the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as the information reported in the article does not appear to fall under the examples of trivial coverage mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

While it is true that the article references quite heavily the company's founders for information, this is not a piece of churnalism, and the fact that Bloomberg follows trusted editorial standards suggests that a degree of trust can be placed in the reported information. Some situations may demand truly independent sources, like investigative journalism, but in this case, the pursuit of extreme intellectual independence might not be necessary, given the credibility of Bloomberg's reporting and editorial practices and the nature of the information. If we were to limit ourselves to purely independent sources, what would any secondary party actually be able to say about any company itself?

The article provides comprehensive coverage of Kalshi's inception, including the founders' background, regulatory hurdles, and the potential risks and benefits of its business model. It doesn't simply regurgitate information like a rewarmed press release but delves into the complexities of prediction markets, the regulatory landscape, and the company's interaction with regulators. The piece goes beyond superficial reporting by providing context and delving into the history of prediction markets, regulatory dynamics, the founders' motivations, the complexities of operating a prediction market platform, the broader debates about the role of prediction markets in finance. It provides nuanced information about the company's approach, the concerns raised by regulators, and how the founders navigated these challenges and includes insights from Kalshi's founders, regulators, and industry experts. The article also presents opposing viewpoints, such as the concerns raised by regulators about potential manipulation. Far from trivial and shallow reporting, in my opinion. Do passages like this not constitute independent journalistic opinion, interpretation, additional insight, and analysis:
That Kalshi prevailed was less a testament to Silicon Valley-style innovation than it was to persistent lobbying and legal wrangling. Lopes Lara and Mansour didn’t invent anything from scratch; they took a well-established concept and forced a change in the way it’s governed. The result, depending on whom you ask, could usher in a new era of market-based enlightenment, or it may push Wall Street’s most destructive tendencies even further into the real world.

At least this is how I see it based on my personal understanding of guidelines. Please let me know how you view it and why you think this article is not up to par. Mooonswimmer 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company. There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company. Second, once we ignore the information provided by the company and look for analysis/opinion/etc, we're left with a mere couple of sentences which to my mind falls short of what is required to meet CORPDEPTH. This article provides more opinions about the market than about the company. Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment". As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization - which to my mind covers most of the authors opinions in this article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company

While the article does discuss the market in general, it's an article about Kalshi; its founders, inception to gaining regulatory approval, business model. Is this not information *about the company*? The information is not solely based on the company's own statements but is also provided through the lens of journalistic reporting. Could you give me an example of potential information about any company that one could gather without using a source affiliated with said company? And is there anything that says for notability, we cannot use reliable sources whose reporting depends on sources affiliated with the organization?
There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company.

There is indeed quite a bit of superfluous information about the market in general, but there is more than a decent amount of information about the company itself. I mentioned the information about the overall market to drive the point that this isn't a lazy piece of churnalism that's rehashing a press release, it's an article that discusses Kalshi while also including opinion and a lot of context regarding prediction markets and regulation in general.
Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment".

Does the highlighted part of the article not discuss Kalshi's unique contribution to the market and its potential significance in the financial landscape, and is not the authors' opinion on its innovation, or rather lack thereof? In my opinion, it's an example of some of the original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject we'd be looking for in such a source.

The guideline says "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 that the content in its entirety should be original analysis. There is plenty of original analysis, investigation, and opinion in the article, even if it does not form the bulk of it.
As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization

The source doesn't only describe a specific topic related to the company. As I mentioned above, the article covers the company's background, regulatory hurdles, and plenty of information *about the company itself*. I can point out this information if necessary.

CORPDEPTH states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

The article provides a detailed overview. It includes some commentary and analysis. It certainly provides the company with a level of attention extending beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Would you say the article's coverage falls under any of the examples of trivial coverage highlighted? I personally don't see how it would fail CORPDEPTH.

My apologies for the lengthy responses. Mooonswimmer 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is lengthy and I've been guilty of that myself in the past. I've rolled it up so it won't put others off - they can still unroll and contribute it they like, hope that's OK. I'll try to keep this focussed and short.

Don't get hung up on the word "information" - it represents "independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc". Examples? Analyst reports for one. Or perhaps an article comparing this company's strategy/performance to a competitor. Or a published independent case study on their market. Or even the LA Books Review article just about gets over the line. Not regurgitated company bumpf with general information that originates from sources affiliated with the company.

You say there's a "decent amount" of information about the company itself. Can you point to parts that clearly originate from a source unaffiliated with the company and which have information about the company? This article (and others) rely entirely on comments/information either attributed directly to the founders or people associated with them, or simply comment/summarise the public CFTC papers.

You ask if the highlighted part discusses Kalshi's "unique contribution to the market", etc. No, it doesn't - or at least not in a way that satisfied CORPDEPTH. It's a mere three sentences which is insufficient in my opinion to meet CORPDEPTH and the final sentence isn't even relevant as it's about the future direction of the market as a result of the new decision. Where else in the article is there any in-depth "Independent Content" that we can look to?

I remain unmoved (on this article). You claim this is deep/significant coverage which contains analysis of the company. But ::when you read it carefully it is clear that the information *about the company* is attributed to company-related sources. The remaining pieces are lightweight, more about the future of the market in general than the company and insufficient detail for CORPDEPTH in any case. But as I've said earlier, we have one source. Another and I'm happy to change my !vote. Is there perhaps an analyst report covering the "predictive market" space which talks about this company? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hope a few other editors will contribute to the assessment of this source as well. I'll try to address this concisely to prevent any unnecessarily long, circular discussions.

Would you say the crux of your issue with this source is it failing CORPDEPTH? If so, could you briefly state why you think the article fails to meet it?

I believe the article meets the criteria for CORPDEPTH as it offers substantial coverage that goes beyond what is routine and trivial. The content includes a detailed account of the company's founding and the regulatory challenges it faced, which I consider to be substantial coverage of the company itself. The level of attention provided in the article goes far beyond mere mentions or routine updates.

While it's true that a significant portion of the article draws information from sources affiliated with the company or regulatory bodies, there is no clear indication that this prevents the article from meeting the criteria for CORPDEPTH, based on my interpretation of the guideline.

Also, what do you think of this USBETS article? Mooonswimmer 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stick with one source at a time. The crux of the issue is not just CORPDEPTH, but ORGIND and CORPDEPTH together. You can't take content that fails ORGIND and use that content to pass CORPDEPTH which I think is what you're trying to do. You say above the source offers substantial coverage - the content goes far beyond mere mentions, etc. But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Ignore that content, all that fails ORGIND. What's left that meets CORPDEPTH? That's the question I'm asking. Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph. You've isolated three sentences so far which I've said (a) they're not all even about the company and are tangental at best and (b) we need more than a couple of sentences. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

What is your basis for this? The article doesn't really go against anything WP:ORGIND mentions, in my opinion. Adherence to ORIND doesn't imply chasing unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information. This can result in absurdity, as highlightedin this conversation on the talk page of the explanatory essay Wikipedia_talk:Independent_sources#Relationship_between_this_topic_and_ORGIND (where you also coincidentally participated).

The authors of this article are unrelated to the company. There is no reason to believe they have any vested interests and it is not a sponsored post. There is no self-promotion or product placement. They are respected, senior reporters and this is their niche. The article was not produced by anyone affiliated with Kalshi, it was produced by the reporters and by Bloomberg. It isn't a copied/regurgitated press release, as it includes some original analysis, interpretation, and investigation, and there's consensus that Bloomberg has a reliable fact-checking and editorial process.

The article doesn't seem to fall under any of the examples of dependent coverage listed. There's a distinction between a press release or an article simply rehashing a press release and an article containing a lot information derived from parties associated with the company, or with regulators.

Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph.

When Lopes Lara and Mansour approached the CFTC in the spring of 2019, some officials in the part of the agency responsible for reviewing their application, the Division of Market Oversight, were skeptical, according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential. There was a sense among the DMO’s seasoned regulators that, for all Kalshi’s talk of revolutionizing finance, this was just a turbocharged iteration of something that had previously been rejected, and with good reason. But it wasn’t the DMO’s job to look at the big picture. The staff review was supposed to be limited to ensuring Kalshi could complete a checklist, “23 Core Principles of a Designated Contract Market,” which included keeping good records and having the requisite financial resources, among other items. The five commissioners would then make a decision. With Trump in the White House, three of them were Republicans ideologically predisposed to the further proliferation of markets into American life [...] Despite the overriding reservations of some DMO members about the riskiness of event contracts, Kalshi demonstrated it could meet the 23 criteria and was approved unanimously. “Once they check all of the boxes, they’re in,” says one person with direct knowledge of the CFTC’s review process.

The part that says according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process = anon source. We don't usually place weight on anon sources. In any case, from context it appears the anon sources were people familiar with the internal reaction at CDTC/DMO. But - and please this is the key point - this para contains zero in-depth details about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This is a discussion about an application and about the general (political) environment. CORPDEPTH - Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. Not a gossipy anon-source description of the reaction to their application within a different org. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi’s case was bolstered by the emergence of a number of prediction markets that hadn’t bothered to try to get regulatory approval. One upstart, Polymarket, let its customers bet hundreds of thousands of dollars anonymously using cryptocurrencies, making it difficult to track. Another market, Augur, which facilitates private wagers between parties using the blockchain, couldn’t regulate bets at all and thus hadn’t stopped users from betting on whether public figures would be assassinated. Kalshi, by comparison, argued it was doing everything right. (The CFTC would go on to fine Polymarket $1.4 million in January 2022 for running an unlicensed exchange. Polymarket says it’s now complying and is “excited to help pioneer the next phase of smart contract-based financial solutions in collaboration with regulators.”)

Same as above, fails CORPEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point, the CFTC’s process for vetting their exchange hadn’t involved asking exactly what markets they planned to run. That discussion came after approval, by which stage momentum was already firmly on Lopes Lara and Mansour’s side. When Kalshi sent across a preliminary list of 30 proposed contracts in March, it unleashed chaos within the already overworked DMO. The division was set up to deal with exchanges that might create two or three new markets a year. Kalshi’s business model called for new ones practically every day. Some of the proposals were uncontroversial, such as questions tied to the weather or gross domestic product. Others, among the initial list and submitted subsequently, seemed troubling. DMO officials worried that contracts tied to Covid-19 numbers, for example, amounted to gambling on human suffering, which is one reason markets on war and terrorism are prohibited. (Similar logic doomed ex-admiral John Poindexter’s Policy Analysis Market, a controversial George W. Bush-era plan to uncover intelligence by getting security analysts to bet on events in the Middle East.) Regulators also couldn’t see how speculating on who would win the Grammys, say, was any less a form of gambling than betting on the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl. Futures contracts are supposed to allow traders to protect themselves against economic risk, and it was hard to understand who, apart from perhaps John Legend, might need to hedge the winner of best R&B album.

Same as above. We're not writing about the CFTC or the DMO, nor are we writing about the market. Still fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi played down such risks, noting that manipulation and insider trading were concerns for any market. It had built a surveillance system and said it would hire a team to monitor for anything improper. “People trade on events all the time—they just use options and other instruments that are harder to track. This is a way to bring all that into the open,” Mansour says, summarizing the argument. Kalshi also didn’t include contracts on elections, which the Democrats on the CFTC might have considered a red line.
This is a summary of parts of the public letter. Still fails CORPDEPTH as above HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Today, Kalshi is growing. Its staff of 32 operates out of an office in New York’s SoHo with big windows and exposed brick. It’s also added some new names to its board, including Quintenz, who left the CFTC 10 months after Kalshi was approved. He says he joined because of “my interest in the hedging and risk management opportunities event contracts could provide the market.” As of mid-May, there were 75 markets on the company’s website, such as “Will there be negative GDP growth by Q4?” and “Will NASA land a person on the moon before 2025?” The exchange recently reached 2 million contracts traded a week, a jump from where it started but still a comparatively tiny figure compared with other futures exchanges. Many of the early adopters are prediction market enthusiasts, lured away from PredictIt and Polymarket. Wagers on the site are currently capped at $25,000, but Kalshi has said it hopes to increase that to $100,000 and then beyond, depending on the market.

A small amount of information about the company based on information on their website and a quote from a (new) board member - no independent analysis/opinion/etc. No clear indication of fact checking (other than perhaps checking that the summary accurately represents what was on the website and what was said - which still means it is PRIMARY). Also inadequate for CORPDEPTH.

We can also move on to another source if you remain completely unconvinced. Insight from other editors would be appreciated. Mooonswimmer 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pause for a sec. If you can't accept/understand that (IMO) this Bloomberg source fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I really don't see the point in going through this for every other source either. You complain about unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information but are failing to grasp that this has *nothing* to do with "ideals" and *nothing* to do with the "presentation" of information. This is a really simple process. We want indications of "Independent Content" not repackaged company information. The journalist has done a fine job with this article and this source can be used to write about the process of applying and how obstacles were overcome, etc, but we look for a particular type of source for establishing notability and this doesn't meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the specific way in which the article contradicts the guidelines outlined in ORGIND?

The unrealistic journalistic ideal I mentioned is expecting that sources of the information in the article be strictly unaffiliated with the company, even when the coverage is significant and includes original interpretation, and when the consensus is that the unvested publisher has high editorial standards. ORGIND doesn't require each source contributing to notability to be an investigative journalism piece; it simply specifies that the coverage must steer clear of being a press release, a sponsored, or a piece of churnalism.

A secondary party needs to consult primary sources for their reporting. How can one possibly compose an analyst report without employing company-affiliated sources like financial statements, earnings reports, investor presentations, and even press releases, for example?

If you could briefly point out how the article fails ORGIND, that would be appreciated. I might be missing something in the guideline. We can then briefly discuss a few other articles, including the second Bloomberg article, the USBets articles, and this Gaming Today article. Your insights on how they fail CORPDEPTH and ORGIND would also be helpful. Mooonswimmer 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mooonswimmer Lets take it to my Talk page rather than here? This isn't the place for in-depth discussions like the one we're having and it just annoys most other editors. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging nominator Oaktree b and Andrevan. Oaktree b, your rationale was "most of the sourcing used, while in RS, is about other things and mention this firm in passing." Andrevan, you mentioned that the coverage is "trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release". To me, this is clearly not the case in the list of sources I provided, as the coverage clearly isn't trivial or incidental, nor are they press releases or rehashed press releases. Could you please address the sources I listed and explain how the coverage is trivial, in-passing mentions?

Here they are again, with a few additional sources:

Most of your sources are pay-walled from my location, I'll trust you to enlighten us as to what they say. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two are blocked by my firewall at work, so no comment. I haven't reviewed Fortune as given here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above with gift links that will allow you to access the Bloomberg articles. ~~The last two sources listed here seem to be accessible, and you can bypass the Fortune paywall by disabling Javascript~~. Mooonswimmer 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content of the article in Tribune de Geneve: Mooonswimmer 04:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Tribune de Geneve article that is behind a hard paywall

Sondage et prévisions

Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout

Une plateforme de trading reconnue par le régulateur américain permet de faire des paris sur les événements politiques et économiques, le climat ou encore la course à la lune.

Nicolas Pinguely

Publié le 06.06.2022, 11h28

Un retour de l’Homme sur la lune, d’ici à 2025, figure parmi les paris proposés sur le site Kalshi. Presque 90% des personnes ayant misé estiment que cela ne se produira pas.

KEYSTONE

L’Homme retournera-t-il sur la lune d’ici à 2025? L’économie américaine va-t-elle entrer en récession au second trimestre? L’année 2022 sera-t-elle la plus chaude jamais enregistrée? Aux États-Unis, il est désormais possible de parier sur presque tous les événements sur le site Kalshi. Un phénomène nouveau qui risque de bousculer le monde des prévisions économiques et politiques.

Créé en 2018 par deux anciens étudiants du Massachusetts Institute of Technology de Boston, Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour, Kalshi est en train de décoller. L’année dernière, les deux entrepreneurs ont récolté plus de 30 millions de dollars pour assurer le développement de leur bébé. Le broker en ligne Charles Schwab et la firme de capital-investissement Sequoia Capital ont notamment mis la main à la poche.

Les financiers approuvent

Le monde de la finance semble enthousiaste. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique», confie John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud à Genève.

«Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique.»

John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud

Fonctionnement en mode binaire

Son fonctionnement est assez simple. Les paris sont pris sur un mode binaire. Il s’agit pour les investisseurs de répondre oui ou non à une question. Si vous avez vu juste, vous empochez 1 dollar par contrat acheté. À l’inverse, vous ne toucherez rien du tout si votre pari est perdant. Durant la vie du contrat, la cote va évoluer entre zéro et un dollar. Aujourd’hui, ces paris sont réservés aux personnes basées outre-Atlantique.

Un exemple? Prenons l’une des quelque septante questions aujourd’hui posées sur le site. Le Sénat américain va-t-il réguler les géants de la technologie avant janvier 2023? À la cote actuelle, un parieur payera 16 cents par contrat s’il estime que cela va se produire. Mais il devra débourser 84 cents s’il pense que la régulation ne sera pas mise en place à cette date. Cela donne une bonne idée du sentiment des investisseurs. Dans ce cas précis, rares sont ceux qui envisagent une percée significative dans le domaine cette année.

Dès lors, Kalshi serait une solide jauge pour appréhender le futur. «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient», souligne Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement. Point positif, les cotes des différents paris sont librement consultables sur le site.

Pour John Plassard aussi, le modèle développé par Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour va dans le bon sens. «Là tu paries de l’argent, alors tu ne vas pas indiquer quelque chose qui ne fait pas sens. Les convictions sont beaucoup plus fortes, par exemple en matière de chômage ou d’inflation», soutient-il.

Mieux que les sondages

Le site serait une alternative intéressante aux sondages classiques. «Cette plateforme répond à une vraie demande, estime Anton Sussland. Cela donne une autre vue que les sondages, souvent imparfaits, particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit de jauger les risques de récession ou d’anticiper les décisions politiques.» Ce dernier rappelle qu’en 2016, personne n’avait vu venir le Brexit anglais ou l’élection de Trump à la présidence américaine.

Vraiment plus intéressant que les sondages? «Clairement oui, répond John Plassard. Dans un sondage Bloomberg sur les statistiques économiques à venir, les gens vont parfois exagérer et mettre des valeurs extrêmes sans réelle raison, ce qui crée un biais.»

«Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient.»

Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement

En vérité, le concept n’est pas totalement nouveau. Une plateforme similaire avait été créée au début des années 2000. «Intrade.com avait été lancée en 2001 et a disparu en 2013, faute d’avoir trouvé un cadre régulatoire adéquat», explique Anton Sussland. À l’époque, ce site très populaire a connu son heure de gloire lors de l’élection d’Obama en 2008, dont il avait prévu la victoire.

Par la suite, il a été contraint de mettre la clé sous la porte, sous la pression des autorités de régulation, soit la Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Aux États-Unis, cette dernière est très scrupuleuse et conservatrice pour tout ce qui a trait aux plateformes financières d’échanges, de jeux et de paris sportifs. L’intérêt public est prépondérant. Les mises sur les assassinats, les actes terroristes ou encore les guerres sont par exemple clairement interdites.

Aval des autorités

De son côté, Kalshi a été officiellement reconnue comme plateforme de trading par la CFTC à fin 2020. La protection offerte aux investisseurs s’est avérée déterminante pour obtenir ce feu vert. «Kalshi permet de vous couvrir contre une série d’événements susceptibles d’affecter vos finances», peut-on d’ailleurs lire sur leur page web.

À l’heure actuelle, deux autres sites américains permettent déjà de parier sur les résultats politiques. Mais à une moindre échelle. L’un est lié à l’Université de l’Iowa (iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu) et l’autre se nomme predictit.org. Si tous les deux ont obtenu une exemption de la part de la CFTC, ils ne sont pas pour autant reconnus comme plateforme officielle de trading. Grâce à cette reconnaissance, Kashi veut, elle, passer à la vitesse supérieure.

Nicolas Pinguely est journaliste à la rubrique économique depuis 2018. Spécialiste en finance, il a travaillé par le passé pour le magazine Bilan, à l'Agefi et au Temps. Il a aussi occupé différents postes dans des banques et sociétés financières, notamment dans la microfinance. Plus d'infos

Vous avez trouvé une erreur? Merci de nous la signaler. Mooonswimmer 04:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this discussion is heavily tilted towards Delete, as of today there is a discussion about additional sources and since at least one editor says that it's close to meeting GNG, I'll relist it for another week. If those who are arguing Keep could point out the references that solidified your opinion, that would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-future-of-futures-on-kalshi-and-prediction-markets/ is critical and reviews the subject in detail, it should meet. Need to review the other references again. - Indefensible (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how good of a source GamingToday is, but as far as I can tell https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/kalshi-event-contracts-vs-sports-betting/ is another in-depth and independent review of the subject. Also somewhat critical: "However, Kalshi can’t offer event contracts on certain events. Federal law prohibits event contracts on geopolitical events like whether a war will break out in a certain country. Kalshi also can’t offer event contracts on political events, like elections, votes, or impeachments." So unless someone knows that GamingToday is not considered reliable from somewhere, it should also meet. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing for https://www.usbets.com/did-kalshi-kill-predictit/, this is an independent piece which the subject refused to communicate with the author on. It contains external analysis such as: "Harry Crane, a professor of statistics at Rutgers who has studied prediction markets, says PredictIt’s loyal and engaged user base offers a case study in why Kalshi offering regulated political prediction markets is of public interest. That could be viewed as a positive by Kalshi as it looks for approval to offer political markets." That should be 3 without even including any of the others from generally reliable sources including Forbes, WSJ, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted gift links above to 3 Bloomberg articles behind a paywall: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events, A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything, Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan
This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered. I also mentioned these in the discussion as well after you voted and did not include them in my initial lists, they're worth taking a look at:
- How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting
- Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt? Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing
In addition, there many articles that cover Kalshi in-depth, but mostly within the context of its latest CFTC request, so they might not count towards notability: Bloomberg Law, Politico, Public Gaming Magazine, Bonus, WSJ, Bloomberg, and others

A._B., your insight would be appreciated as well. Mooonswimmer 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indefensible and Mooonswimmer, I don't typically get such an immediate response to comments made when relisting a discussion. It would be useful for those editors who advocated Deletion to return to assess the articles you present right here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LARB ref should be uncontroversial; Andre wrote above that "You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine." HighKing also wrote "The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability." The question will be whether the others are enough or if that is just a half-step to meeting. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/05/voters-betting-elections-trading-00054723 is also good with a couple primary quotes sprinkled in and not just routine, although that reference might be more debatable. But from GamingToday, USBets, and others (which Mooonswimmer seems to have added more of that I have not reviewed), in my opinion there should be no question the subject qualifies for encyclopedic inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b (the AFD nominator) also evaluated the Politico ref as meeting towards GNG in their assessment table. So we should have at least 2 good sources right there. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, except we need to evaluate sourcing against NCORP and Oaktree b has been known to completely ignore NCORP criteria (as seen in another recent AfD discussion). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources can be described as follows: Sources that discuss the CFTC application and the ensuing drama that enfolded. None of those articles provide more than a generic description of the topic company. Some might talk about the general market too and mention others in the market. This includes pieces from Enonomist, Bloomberg, WSJ, publicgaming.com, bonus.com and bloomberglaw. These fail NCORP. Most !voters saying that these sources meet our criteria argue to "trust the journalist" and "but its a reliable source" which either shows a lack of understanding of NCORP or wilfully ignoring ORGIND's requirements for content to be *clearly* *attributable* to a *source* *unaffiliated* to the subject.

The USABets article discusses a "theory" that the topic company was responsible for shutting down another organization, PredictIt. It starts with unsubstantiated gossip and rumours, tweets, podcasts and blogs and goes on to get comments from people about the *theory* but not about the company, not content we can use to establish notability, insufficient in-depth information *about* *the* *company*.
The gamingtoday article gives an independent overview of the topic company and their "products" and their place in the market. In my opinion, this meets NCORP.
The prospect article is better since it doesn't just regurgitate company info or the various intrigues of their application - the author provides their own opinion/analysis between Kalshi's hiring of ex-CFTC officials and Bankman-Fried's previous attempts to secure favorable regulations. It goes on to also draw similarities with the involvement of Sean McElwee. These comparissons are not just about the application but are also an analysis of longer-term company strategy and are independent opinion. In my opinion, it meets NCORP.

I'm changing my !vote to Keep based on the above sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With HighKing switching their evaluation to keep, I think we should probably have a good case for consensus on inclusion here. - Indefensible (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal if Oaktree b could evaluate the remaining sources and provide their final assessment. Input from Andrevan and MrOllie would also be useful. Mooonswimmer 04:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a !keep anyway based on my first table with two good-ish sources. The rest are gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (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!} 21:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incred Finance

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

Non-notable finance company, tagged for factual accuracy, unsure of notability. I can't find sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep See [74], [75] for the only GNG sources I found. As ATD, perhaps redirect and merge to Anshu Jain Belichickoverbrady (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, this is based entirely on a company announcement (same as this in moneycontrol.com and simalarly the India Times article also relies exclusively on an company announcement. These fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Left me with the impression of a non-notable business, given the web search. Suitskvarts (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2023 (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!} 04:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GENIVI Alliance

AfDs for this article:

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

Undeleted soft-delete-prod but still lacks sources or notability. Attempted COI editing. Written like an advertisement. Andre🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Andre🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- lots of good refs out there from Google News. I'm on the road with little time to list them properly. Here's a sample: [76][77][78][79][80]
- EBSCO via the Wikipedia Library - many are recycled press releases but there WP:RS as well (may or may not be sufficient for notability)
- Google Books also has references to meet notability
- The article may seem promotional but this is a nonprofit standards setting group using Linux for automotive operating systems. Participants are: "GM, PSA/Peugeot-Citroen, Renault-Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and others, and more than a dozen global suppliers, including Robert Bosch, Continental, Denso, Aisin and Valeo."
- We need this article - people are going to be looking for information.
- Article needs new title - organization is now the "Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance". (press release)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above references appear quite trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release type info. Andre🚐 04:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the links I gave are "trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release type", especially after you read each one.

These are in-depth articles:[81][82]
The other articles I cite give several paragraphs. Less than a passing mention but not deep dives. Collectively they add up to an analysis of GENIVI as well as its competitors
Books are not press releases, at least not in my country.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:ROUTINE more thoroughly as it appears to cover all of this comfortably including those "in-depth" articles which are both basically press clippings. Every book mention is trivial as well. Andre🚐 17:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous references in scholarly papers. Please see [83] and connected edit request placed on talk page to improve article with better sourcing. TR??Wiki5 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This user has a disclosed WP:COI (see their contribution history). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd iike to see more comments or a source analysis on the recently discovered sources. Also, since Soft Deletion is not available, there will need to be stronger support for a Deletion than the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I just implemented an extensive COI edit request made by the above user, and added their COI on the talk page. The article has been almost completely rewritten, but may not include all the sources that were discussed above. The main difference seems to be that there are several research papers based on the organization's work that were added as references. I don't have full access to them and can't tell how extensive the coverage is, but the summaries shown here [84] reference the organization's work. I also don't have access to the books that were discussed above, but if anyone else does and wants to verify whether they can be used to improve the sourcing, I'd consider revising my vote to a regular keep. STEMinfo (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the edits referenced in STEMinfo's !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a lot of coverage of this subject per A. B., lots of primary stuff to filter but should be more than enough in my opinion. At least some of the studies indicated above look independent and seem to cover technical details in depth. More references on ProQuest, again some primary material but not all, which should further support notability. I think a subject of this kind, being a cooperative between major industry competitors which are themselves all uncontroversially notable, is a good target for inclusion on the encyclopedia. - Indefensible (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Article may need to be moved however per the subject's change in current name, which can be discussed on its talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2023 (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!} 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Hogtown Press

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Under sourced and what is sourced seems to lack depth. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable under the WP:GNG. Not sure why this was tagged and even less so why this was nominated. The nomination appears to be in conflict with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and something along the lines of wikipedia has no expiration date (sorry could not find it back so no link -- assistance appreciated!) gidonb (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are adequate. Being burgularized by the RCMP Security Service is a sign of notability. (sad face) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wheel Recreation

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

Notability criteria failure. Lots of one sentence trivial mention in numerous CMJ magazines, and other mentions elsewhere like "Many emo bands of the late 90s signed to indie labels including Jade Tree Records, Saddle Creek, and Big Wheel Recreation." but sources that satisfy ORGDEPTH not found. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of mentions but they are all associated with the musicians and/or music, not in-depth about the label itself. I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT in Google Search, News, Books, or Newspapers.com. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the most significant label yet to be AfD'ed in the recent bumper crop of NCORP-motivated deletions (at least as far as I've been made aware), this label had literally dozens of noteworthy signees and its output was routinely reviewed in independent music rags for more or less the label's entire run. This is a perfect object lesson for why NCORP is a Procrustean bed for labels, and is actively harming depth of coverage in music; without this article providing a node for hyperlinking, how do we note the connective tissue between these bands (which meet WP:MUSIC on their own without relying on the notability of the label itself)? I can note a little coverage in depth of the label itself, but this is missing the wider issue of what we are trying to accomplish in having articles about independent labels at all; this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture, and that is the proper subject of an encyclopedia article. This isn't a functioning label and so there aren't promotional concerns; there are no verifiability concerns; why is the encyclopedia better by losing the article? If the rules say we have to, we still don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture then prove it. Provide widely circulated mainstream citation that corroborates the supposed significant and lasting impact on culture. As an example, PBS states in their own voice about Thomas Edison: Edison invented or refined devices that made a profound impact on how people lived^[1]. Now, let's see something of equal caliber crediting Big Wheel Recreation for making a profound impact on music culture. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself noted that BWR's output received routine coverage in CMJ; as one can find in Google Books, there is issue after issue after issue, year after year, covering their releases. That's a strong indicator of significance, and we should not turn a blind eye to its existence. Of course, there is no such PBS article, and this label does not meet NCORP; aside from major labels, I doubt more than a handful of the thousands of labels with articles do, because they were never made to and because people who edit in music never had the thought to apply it to them, any more than they would have applied it to bands (which, I have noted before, absolutely are corporations). Chubbles (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existence doesn't mean notability unfortunately. While there are many mentions, it is about the releases or the musicians, not about the label. A "strong indicator of significance" is also not "significance." --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can assert importance of their own family and claim their clan is profoundly important to modern civilization and the author may sincerely hold this belief. However, personally held belief that something is important when there's no general consensus as being an improvement is not a good situation to invoke WP:IAR. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is degenerating into straw-man territory. I've had this conversation with the nominator several times already and am well aware that his WP:HEY standard is beyond what 99% of the articles on independent labels can provide. So I'll just say that the criterion he claims is necessary for inclusion is neither required nor helpful to encyclopedically covering music on the site. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose a modification of notability policy over at Village Pump or other recognized forum to formally gather consensus and get the notability requirements change for record labels. For now, can you drop three sources that raises this company to meet NCORP? Notability requires verifiable evidence. Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Who Made America? | Innovators | Thomas Edison". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this record label in independent, reliable sources. Record labels are not exempt from WP:NCORP and shouldn't be. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find something in the Athletic of all places [85], but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this in the Harvard newspaper [86]. That isn't usually used for notability purposes. We have like one and a half sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos (record label)

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

Non-notable local business that do not satisfy WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article doesn't have enough reliable sources, and fails both WP:N and possibly WP:NPOV. 64andtim (chat) 06:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2023 (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. Struck or not, Liz's relist comment sums up the situation: A lot of very new accounts making relatively poor arguments in favor of keeping, while established editors and those making higher quality arguments were much more on the delete side. As AfD is not a nose count, this tilts it into "Delete". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Crowd

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

WP:SPA creation, no indication of notability per WP:NCORP. Ko Eilders (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be outside sources discussing the company here, and I found some puff interviews, but I'm not finding anything definitive saying this one reaches the notability guidelines: [[87]][[88]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG."Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm skeptical of new accounts whose 2nd edit is to nominate an article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Most of the sources are PRIMARY and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the notability worksheet.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Akikormin125
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/startup-of-the-week-cad-crowd	Independent	The source is a noted book by a newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/129375675/	Edmonton Journal is independent	Yes it is reliable	Yes the article is about them	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=ifqaDwAAQBAJ&q=%22CadCrowd%22	Independent	The source is a major publisher & well respected Author	The book has fairly substantial coverage, definitely more than a mention.	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr1dEAAAQBAJ&q=%22Cad+Crowd%22+-wikipedia	Independent	The information discussed seems reliable	~ Repeatedly mentioned on P.’s 268, 270, 272	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20200415004410/https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/01/technology/01reuters-health-coronavirus-invention-insight.html	Independent	The source is a news organization.	Fairly decent for ny times.	✔ Yes
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/product-design/a2766-cad-crowd-10-iconic-products/	Independent	The source is a well known online architectural publication. Could be a yellow here if you were being extremely harsh.	~ The entire article is about the company and the history of what has been showcased there.	~ Partial
https://www.engineering.com/story/the-best-crowdsourced-designs-to-fight-covid-19	Independent	The source is one of the most notable engineering websites	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald/129375502/	Independent	The source is a well known	~ This article is more of a mention than in-depth.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Akikormin125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response Here's a quick analysis using GNG/WP:NCORP criteria
Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf)

Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH
Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND

None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseHere's a quick analysis of your analysis using my version of GNG/WP:NCORP criteria, the way it is supposed to be applied.

~~Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf)~~ Anyone doing a weekly column on startups from their country will have a editorial review board of at least a journalist and editor that reviews submissions, researches and then contacts the principals for a brief interview which is what happened here. Any information published independently of the interview is considered valid and usable. WP:NCORP is meant to weed out simple mentions, phone book listings, small funding announcements w/ no additional information and trivial coverage. Not articles in major news publications highlighting the country’s most promising companies.

~~Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.~~ Same situation here, the paper is covering a labor shortage and how Cad Crowd is helping. There is significant coverage into the company, its product, and its history. There are a couple quotes but that is standard editorial process in newspapers to grab quotes while fact checking. This is the definition of good coverage and a valid article.

~~Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH~~ This entry into this book literally has a section where it says this is a short profile of the company. It is mentioned 3 times over 2 pages THAT WE CAN SEE.. You can see the entry has numerical paragraphs, we only see 1), so there is definitely more there. WP:CORP defines passages in books as counting towards notability. It is even listed at the end of the book.

Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH The same goes here. This company is tacking internal data from the company and training the machine. There is absolutely nothing more in-depth about the company than information from its website and customers fed into an AI program to learn from. This chapter is 6 pages long and is the definition of corp depth. They literally use Cad Crowd to train InnoCrowd so every mention of InnoCrowd can be sourced back as info on Cad Crowd. Also, Cad Crowd is often referred to as “the crowdsourcing platform” several times as well. That is at least a 10 pages just on Cad Crowd. How could you claim you read this and argue it wasn’t in-depth? It is an entire AI platform developed on the bones of Cad Crowd and how it was developed.

~~Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.~~ This comment is just creating more work, my table specifically says it is not an in-depth article but again, mentions do count toward notability. This article is about several people trying to tackle problems during a pandemic in different ways.

Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You are just creating more work again here.. If you look at the table, I only claim partial because I already took into consideration it was an online publication. I went to the disclaimer page and there is nothing there that isnt standard for any small publication. There is nothing there about paid content or anything about contributors. This not the same situation as forbes like you claim.

E~~ngineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH~~ This article is items designed on its platform to help save lives during a global pandemic. Since this is an engineering and design crowdsourcing employment platform, this again, is the very definition of corporate depth.

~~Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND~~ Trying to attack this reference when the table says it is more of a mention in a larger articles is just projecting. Read the table, I agree it is more of a mention but still partially counts.

I count at least 4 sources that meet the parameters and 3 partials towards WP:GNG/NCORP. I should also mention that sources do not need to be in the article. This is a worldwide engineering crowdsourcing website taking jobs from all over the world. I see several sources in other languages including both newspapers and books. I don’t see the point of doing more work since I only need 2 and I have obviously provided 4. I hope some other editors will join me voting so we can debunk this misuse of WP:NCORP and look at the article’s intentions and what it really lists as trivial mentions. Thanks, you have my vote, table and reply.. I weep for those editors with less real world publishing experience who have to deal with this.

From my perspective, every argument you made on every source I provided was wildly incorrect or already addressed in the table I provided. Akikormin125 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is a disagreement over the quality of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep: I saw other pages related to it and also its resources. The resources used are kind of trustable and I see no enough reason to delete it. Rather there are things to be improved through editing. Eyoab (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs provided are from major news sources, throw in some books passages as well. Softowiki (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its evident that all sources are independent and reliable. Also, most of them have significant coverage and only a few contain partial significant coverage. All these prove the authenticity of the article that's why I'm for "Keep". Softowiki (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have reviewed the above and am in complete agreement with HighKing's assessment of the sources. This fails WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the pro-keeping table of sources was provided by the article's author, who has made limited edits outside this page and deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - there are references although many are based on interviews, so let the article creator work on improving the article. - Indefensible (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles seem to be in line with competitors pages..
Hishamsamo (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Hishamsamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Perhaps the competitors' articles should be deleted too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A sock just showed up on the AfD's talk page as well. I don't know why this particular article is drawing attention, but it should be noted. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that subject, the nominator has no edits other than starting this AfD ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping this is some sort of performance art AfD then. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Canadian newspaper articles and the NY Times pieces seem to be credible enough for a freelance marketplace.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldabrun (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are independent and reliable. Most of them have significant coverage and only a few contain partial significant coverage Goldabrun (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the sources above and find myself in agreement with HighKing's assessment of the sources - that they either aren't in-depth, aren't independent, or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article could benefit from more comprehensive wikification. It pertains to a distinctive freelance marketplace designed for CAD designers, rendering its subject matter noteworthy. The inclusion of references further contributes to the article's merit and justifies its retention. User:SharonAnama 6:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck vote per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SharonAnama. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now we have a divide between experienced editors weighing in for Deletion and newer accounts advocating Keeping the article. This should be the end of it but I'm relisting this discussion to see if there is any further support for Draftifying this article and asking for it to go through the AFC process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I know it isn't my place to tell someone who spends as many hours as you do about wikipedia but isn't 3 relistings excessive? I thought two was the max? I know I am not of any standing but as it was brought up, the nominator had no history at all.. not that mine is extensive but to resist a 3rd time for something that was barely in the conversation? Anyway, I added some references and cleaned up the article to hopefully comply with wikipedia's standards. There are more out there but given this company has 45,000 engineers and designers on its platform, I think it would more collaborative to allow other people to contribute before sourcing the entire company history to prove its notability. I think this should have been closed as a win or at least a tie.. They could always revisit AFD in 90 days. Thx for your help. Akikormin125 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akikormin125,

Sometimes discussions are relisted three times although it's advised to not relist more than twice. Don't feel like it isn't your place to note problems if they exist, that's the only way to get a situation to change. To be honest, I've been taking on more AFDclosures and relistings than I think I should and that is partially due to a low number of admins patrolling AFDs compared to, say, a year ago or even earlier this summer. At this point, I feel it's best to leave it to another admin to close this discussion who might not see the problems I saw. I've struck my comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article has enough references to meet the spirit of WP:GNG per the ref table. User:Annki777
Delete The appear to be some COI accounts weighing here, but be that as it may, this article as written and cited does not merit a keep. Perhaps a case can be made that additional editing and WP:RS sourcing could improve it, but from its current state and good points made by other editors in the discussion, it seems like a clear delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject needs to be improved. the article was listed for deletion after 3 days. From what I see, it has continued to improve and add references." as well. Also I can see some reliable sources such as the Calgary Herald and IEEE Spectrum. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references to keep a posting about a freelance job platform for engineers. I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Apple pellet (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to again reiterate the point this is one of the strangest AfDs I've ever seen - almost every single keep !voter is relatively new to the project, and (at least?) one has already been a confirmed sock. The article as it stands still fails WP:NCORP. The Calgary Herald article was an interview with the founders and does not meet SIRS. The IEEE article barely mentions the company - it's about a design competition they sponsored. The New York Times article just interviews the founder briefly. There still aren't any articles which clear the large NCORP hurdle, and nobody arguing to keep this around has really interacted with that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just send it back to draft as compromise in my opinion, there is confirmed sockpuppet use and probably WP:COI as you noted but subject does have promise and could meet WP:SIRS in the future so let them have the draft and continue working on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot more patience with COI editing than I do :) SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI participation does not have to be universally bad, just like how using WP:PRIMARY sources is not 100% wrong either. This subject actually has decent ref coverage in my opinion, the main problem is they seem to be mainly based on interviews. So with further coverage it looks promising. - Indefensible (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can say that the discussion on NCORP hasn't been discussed? There has been:
- A table
- An analysis
- A retort
- Voting
- 9 additional references have been added since nomination that supposedly were available.
- 99Designs & other competitors are similarly in line with this page. Those articles are in much more need of improvement.
- Since the additional references have been added the voting has been positive.
Additionally I am not sure you understand the Cad Crowd model. The company offer design contests for projects so a winner can be hired. Design contests the company puts on to respond to a global pandemic when it is a freelancing crowd platform for engineers and designers is their corporate depth. NCORP is designed to prevent permastubs which this article is already way beyond. At some point the NY Times and all the other references have to be enough. Akikormin125 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not permastubs: WP:NCORP says These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. If you read the NCORP guidelines, the references aren't enough, as I've discussed, and those !voting have not addressed those concerns. And the NY Times article - just because the founder of a company gets a sentence in a paper does not mean a company is notable... there may be better sources out there that would lend this to being kept, but I don't see them here. Also just because other similar companies have a page does not mean this one is eligible due to WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find this information originally Akikormin125? Do you have any COI regarding the subject? Even if you do not, there is at least 1 confirmed sockpuppet and the high level of activity from new accounts looks suspicious frankly. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2023 (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. The main points of contention are whether the NYT coverage is significant and whether the TechCrunch article is independent. This is ultimately down to subjective judgment, and since all of the discussion is policy-based, we look to the numerical tally which is slightly in favor of keeping but not quite enough to declare a consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoSpace

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

This does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and is written like an advertisement- most of 'Workflow' section should be removed, and most of 'History' is PR speak, which leaves very little for an article. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and none of the references meet it. The NYT piece is close but the company is not the main focus of the article. Everything else is routine coverage such as funding announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with WP:GNG standards, the page meets the notability criteria as it primarily discusses the software, rather than the company. Specifically, the sources discuss the software. The New York Times piece, while not entirely focused on the company, is rather huge and gives in-depth coverage of the software and its influence on the virtual office software industry. I found several books with good descriptions of the software and added one review in a new section. Furthermore, I've integrated several credible sources in other languages, such as Chinese from 36kr.com, as well as numerous academic papers that explore the software's impact on student studies, business workflows, and more. As such, the page meets the basic notability requirements and could be restructured to resemble a software-centric entry more closely. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about the company or the software. It is about virtual meetings and discusses the company and software in context with several other companies. Neither the software or the company are the main focus of the article so it would not meet ORGCRIT. "Descriptions" of the software in other sources fall short as well. It would be the same as considering a company directory listing (Crunchbase, Bloomberg, etc.) for notability. Are you able to point out any specific references other than these you feel meet ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added 2 more sources to the page, a review from a book and some academia papers where Kumospace is the subject. I recognize that nuances around guidelines and what may or may not meet specific criteria can be tricky. I've tried my best to address the notability concerns, I believe a third-party evaluation will provide clarity. Thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. First of all, the very lengthy New York Times magazine piece does not make the company the focus but it does talk a lot about the company. The article is about why people need something like KumoSpace. Common sense says it counts. Read it for yourself.

There's a TechCrunch article about KumoSpace; our WP:RSNP note on TechCrunch warns about variability in the reliability of their articles: see WP:TECHCRUNCH. I read the article; it's by a named staff reporter and I judge it to be independent. Nominally, it's about raising money but primarily it's about KumoSpace and what they're doing.

There are citations to journal articles about using KumoSpace in the classroom -- I'm not sure how they fit into our WP:NCORP scheme.

My reservation is that by tech standards, this is a small company in a very big space; they raised $21 million in financing. The tech giants have more coins than that just in their sofas. A personal beef I have with WP:NCORP is that ignores size in favor of meeting some very specific citation requirements. We end up with articles about dive bars in Saskatoon because people wrote interesting profile pieces about them. We coverage of Fortune 500 companies because when they fire 1000 people, takeover a competitor or earn $1 billion, it's "routine." Ultimately my !vote is about the rules, not my personal preferences so KumoSpace is a keep.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the NYT article and TechCrunch article. I believe you are saying you have an issue with NCORP which is understandable as I often have an internal conflict with it myself (I think we raised the bar high to keep out spam and wound up keeping out some good companies as a result). Unfortunately, the guideline is what it is and would need to be changed before it can be applied as such (lower standards than currently written). Regardless, let's assume that the NYT and TechCrunch meet ORGCRIT. If that is the case, I don't feel that both together would be strong enough for NCORP. If two sources similar to these could meet NCORP, we could have thousands more articles on companies that otherwise would not qualify. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NYT, along with other US and foreign articles, provides significant coverage of KumoSpace, illustrating its relevance among virtual meetings industry. It's notable for a software that academic references emphasize its impact in the educational sector. I'd rather strongly agree with the above arguments of notability and believe the article is more about a software. In this context, and given its diverse references, it meets the general notability criteria. --Emma so Bergst222 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me specifically which "other US and foreign articles" meet the criteria spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 Andre🚐 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, the NYTimes article coverage is excessively discounted by CNMall41 and not trivial per A. B. Here is another source from MIT which I do not see discussed thus far: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/08/1035081/facebook-horizons-oculus-zoom-fatigue/. Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material but again the coverage is not trivial. Plus there seems to be a surprising degree of international coverage which I have not really checked yet, but indicates there is more than enough to support inclusion of the article on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the subject is not the main focus and there is some primary material" - Then how would it meet WP:ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to use our judgement rather than strictly follow imperfect guidelines blindly. - Indefensible (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is concerning. We use our judgment comparing guidelines to available sources to see if they meet those guidelines. We cannot simply vote contrary to those guidelines because we feel they are "imperfect." That is circumventing Wikipedia guidelines. WP:IDLI would apply here and should be avoided. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your concern, however I stand by my comment. As I previously wrote in regards to a political article, having a single quote (for example) should not be enough to invalidate an entire article on the basis of being primary. This coverage from MIT's Tech Review is additional to NYTimes' article which is also discussed by others above (I am merely in agreement with A. B. upon reviewing it), and other sources. Plus the considerable foreign sources add support for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you are standing behind your comment to not follow a guideline you feel is imperfect? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am standing by my comments above, particularly the original review where I supported keeping the article. - Indefensible (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of how well the references available on this subject meet, or do not meet, the relevant guidelines such as WP:N and WP:CORP would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It is notable that the Keep !voters above pretty much acknowledge that the sources don't meet NCORP. Most of the information discusses the "newness" of the VR experience and the software, there's no Independent Content about the company and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After making some research in line with WP:BEFORE, it’ s evident that Kumospace is primarily recognized as a software program and multiple sources treat it as such (quite often naming it as an alternative to Zoom). I also count as reliable sources the research scholarly papers from universities around the globe which explores/examines this soft, e.g. how Kumospace impacts Grade 9 students’ academic performance (published in the double-blind peer-reviewed American Journal of Education and Technology. As for me, it is important to keep in mind that as the article is not about the company only, but also about the software. Thus, it seems to meet the WP:GNG. I also slightly rearrange the page's structure. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're almost evenly split on consensus between delete and keep. Relisting for another go around
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to see how the NYT article could possibly be used to support any coverage-based criteria for evaluating N, given that it hardly has any information about KumoSpace, much less "directly and in detail". The TechCrunch article, on the other hand, is for the most part "Martin says", "Martin posits", "Martin stresses", "Martin argues". Martin being Brett Martin, co-founder and president of the company, it is unclear how we should consider it independent. E-Palli is not listed as a predatory publisher, but there are indications that suggest that it dubious. I am not convinced that any of its journals should be considered RS, and I am not aware of its inclusion in relevant indicies. In any case, despite being independent, it is most certainly also WP:PRIMARY, both of which are required in SIRS. I can't find a basis for lower standards for software as put forward by BoraVoro and Old-AgedKid (the WP:NSOFT essay notably directs us to WP:NPRODUCT for commercial software) and the general notability guideline is actually quite similar, if not quite so explicit about the required depth to be considered significant (understandably so, since the primary criteria of the SNGs were how it was originally formulated. I don't see an argument for retention that aligns with the relevant guidelines, so I will have to recommend a delete. (edit conflict) yeah probably my fault for taking so long but y'all could leave some of this stuff in OAFD for like a day or so, grumble grumble Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of substantial NYT coverage, a TechCrunch feature, and multiple other independent sources makes this a clear keep in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's your problem right there. We don't combine sources for the purposes of meeting the criteria. We need multiple sources whereby *each* source meets *all* the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC:, based on your limited participation on Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could expand on how NYT, TechCrunch, and (multiple) other sources meet WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techcrunch, in the form of actual bylined editorial articles (versus Crunchbase and so on) is a significant source of original reporting on technology companies and (despite many objections to the boosterish tone in this discussion and elsewhere) is usually considered the main source of news on technology companies. The feature there is significant, independent, reliable and secondary.

A major NYT Magazine feature obviously meets all four criteria, the NYT magazine is one if the most high profile sources in the English language. Thus the argument taking place here is if the subject's inclusion in this feature is a passing mention or a significant part of the article. My judgement is that it's significant, but it's certainly arguable.

The combination of those two, plus other credible citations, meets notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There seems to be confusion about SIRS. While TechCrunch is a reliable source, the one cited is a routine announcement of funding with churnalism. For New York Times, this is not about KumoSpace. It talks about it in briefly in context with virtual meetings so it fails SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd prefer to keep it. I enjoyed the interesting discussion and do see the issues with "multiple reliable sources", and an argument that some non-fiction books describe the software. I also cannot say that the New York Times newspaper merely mentions it briefly. Their media coverage is comprehensive enough to write a short, neutral article about kumospace on Wikipedia, if to apply such a verification method. However, that's not my point. I was surprised to find out that kumospace is already a part of several university courses (Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London) on "Profile Building/Networking". Specifically, an entire session is dedicated to kumospace software, while Cambridge University uses kumospace for teaching its Networking course. This, in itself, speaks to its notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (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.

[1] "Noesis Capital Advisors Satyadeo Hospitality Announce the Acquisition of Golden Tulip". Economic Times.

[2] "Noesis Hotel in 2032 report summarises trends in the hospitality sector". Economic Times.

[3] "Noesis propels hospitality sector in MMR region with 10 hotel tie-ups". Economic Times.

[4] "NOESIS revolutionises hospitality infrastructure in Mumbai Metropolitan Region with unprecedented hotel tie-ups". Business World.

[5] "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominates mid-market hotel space in India". www.hotelierindia.com.

[6] "Mid-sized hotels on aggressive expansion drive as occupancy, rates zoom". Business Standard.

[7] "Red carpet for leisure travellers: Hotels look to add 20,000 rooms". Business Standard.

[8] "Distressed deals in hospitality biz on the rise". Livemint.

[9] "Mozambique's Masa group to buy Mumbai hotel project from Aristo Realty Developers". Livemint.

[10] "Wyndham's India partner picks majority stake in Kolkata hotel". DNA India.

[11] "Lemon Tree takes long lease route to enter Banjara Hills". DNA India.

[12] "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominating mid-market hotel space in India". hospitalitybizindia.com.

[13] "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

[14] "Hospitality industry players remain resilient amid lukewarm investor interest". The Hindu BusinessLine. 24 April 2023.

[15] NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.

[16] NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.

[17] "Noesis Capital Advisors vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors on 12 April, 2022". indiankanoon.org.

[18] "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

[19] "Who Made America? | Innovators | Thomas Edison". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]