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 speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK #4. ✗plicit 06:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sawani (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Macbeejack ☎ 05:38, 21 March 2024 (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 and no indication of further input Star Mississippi 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTV Ltd.

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

Not notable and lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Largely unencyclopedic content including channel listings, "competitors" and the cost per month. PROD removed on the basis of sources on the Spanish Wikipedia that appear to be solely about the hacking of various Falkland Islands websites nearly 10 years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, United Kingdom, and Argentina. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two refs I added before this nomination. They were from the Spanish Wikipedia. Neither mentions hacking so I’m confused. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree article needs pruning and improvement. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources at the Spanish Wikipedia mention the website hacking incident. With regards to the sources you added, one appears to be primarily about Falkland Islands Television Limited, not KTV. It appears to be a trivial source per WP:ORGTRIV (coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is considered trivial). The other source is an interview with someone from the company, considered a primary source. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it serves the needs of various communities which and is an important source or information to them. Article does need improving though. Karl Twist (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we may as well get rid of notability requirements then. All information could potentially be useful to someone. WP:USEFUL. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer opinions based in source analysis and policy, not your opinion of the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (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!} 01:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fliff Social Sportsbook

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

Promotional article that was previously draftified, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage that isn't promotional. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Pennsylvania. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cited to a bunch of thinly concealed native advertising. SI [1] - This isn't an independent review; promotional call to actions everywhere: "signing up for a NEW account", "Join Fliff today", etc. Chicago Tribune [2] - "Fliff combines the excitement of sports betting with the camaraderie of social media", "Current Fliff offer", exclusively promotional. The Washington Post source is better, but it seems to be the only acceptable source. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides the Washington Post article, there isn't any other WP:GNG coverage present, either in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Letsrun. Only 1 decent source, and no evidence of anymore to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very weak coverage, does not meets GNG. Bikerose (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 19:29, 27 March 2024 (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!} 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification

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

Promotional article about non-notable organization, created by obvious paid editor. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to earlier AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC). Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. I would be charitable, but in 2024, everybody knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 3 April 2024 (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. Page is now SALTed. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlabs

AfDs for this article:

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

Another (3rd) recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. Previous AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marlabs_(2nd_nomination) 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This company does not have any WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing is limited to interviews and press releases. I was unable to find anything other than press releases/churnalism by websites such as "PR Newswire." Please note the Forbes article is by the CEO so it does not count as secondary coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt both Marlabs and Marlabs LLC : A new instance on a previously deleted topic, supported by a summary and announcement-based coverage of routine company history, falling under WP: ORGTRIV. I see no reason to set aside the previous AfD decisions. Given this 3rd AfD, plus previous G11 deletions, if this current instance is deleted, it also seems appropriate to salt the variant names. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a completely different from previous versions which are so old. Now it is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources, passes GNG. Graze Wood (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for improvement Star Mississippi 01:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Optima Production

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:CORP. I tried to encourage user to fix that multiple times before moving out of draft space, but was ignored multiple times. Edit history has been broken so much I dont think a merge is even possible anymore due to copy+paste moves and redirects even if the result was keep. Q ^{T C} 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Q ^{T C} 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify and salt While I could find plenty of results for them, they were all are either passing mentions of working with a musician, [3] [4] or primarily based on press releases or interviews. [5] [6] [7] [8] none of which would help to meet WP:NCORP. The edit history just seems to be a mess and while I wouldn't be opposed to draftification, I'm not sure how much of an option that is when it's been created despite prior draftification and no changes to improve it. Shaws username . talk . 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed from deleting, it doesn't feel right to advocate deletion when I don't speak the language and can't do the same level of WP:BEFORE. However I'm still sceptical that it could meet WP:NCORP, most of the sources (including those below) contain significant sections of quotes from the CEO, when WP:SIRS says it should be completely independent, and some have more about OTT is than the company. Given that it's been draftified three times and probably been copy and pasted moved to mainspace each time, salting would seem to be necessary to prevent that again. Shaws username . talk . 05:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: This recording company has received significant coverage from major Indonesian news outlets such as detik.com, Republika, Kontan, Bisnis Indonesia, Investor Daily, and many more... It's not difficult to find Indonesia sources for this company. IMO it should pass WP:CORP requirements, However, given the current condition of the article, it might be more suitable to move it to draft rather than keep it on as article in WP. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Indonesian-language source material found by Ckfasdf indicates a GNG pass, and articles on noteworthy topics should be improved rather than removed. I don't have much confidence that the draftified article would ever return to mainspace, and the encyclopedia is less complete with this subject uncovered. Chubbles (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets GNG, AfD is not cleanup, and I don't see inaccurate nor promotional prose that needs to be removed. Therefore I don't see the point in moving to draft. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested. It might be notable, but I can't tell from this unsourced mess. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not comfortable enough to vote but Billboard described them as "one of Indonesia’s biggest local labels" and the Asian Theatre Journal (ProQuest 214407259) stated they (Dian Records) were "one of Indonesia's largest audiocassette production companies". S0091 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Completely unsourced and other reasons listed above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems like an option to provide an opportunity to find sources. Otherwise given the sources I've located to date, it would be a delete as none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen (tech company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to funding announcements. Search is complicated by the existence of notable Lumen Technologies, but I couldn't find anything about this company besides the aforementioned announcements, and a couple short inclusions in lists of startups that don't add up to significant coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Technology, and Israel. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look around some more before making up my mind. Coverage seems focused on the technology, less on the funding. We want everything covered. Not all coverage found is independent. This piece is a SIGCOV, independent ANALYSIS of the technology in Forbes, discussing at length the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. It counts toward notability. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be recently covered by reliable sources, such as Forbes [9] and TheVerge [10] . Marokwitz (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, Marokwitz, for finding a second valid source! gidonb (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Forbes article is by a contributor and cannot be used. The Verge article along with 3 present, make it a marginally keep for me.Bikerose (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ambivalent. I am highly concerned that the two sources held up as the best SIGCOV are examples of affiliate marketing. There are a few other reviews more or less along the same lines, for example, Kraus (Mashable, 2020) and Giordano (Wired, 2020) both presumably for the earlier iteration of the product, and Dervish-O'Kane (Women’s Health, 2024), but non-affiliate sources seem rather thin on the ground, and while appropriately disclosed for the typical journalistic source, that does not mean the coverage can be considered independent by our standards. Byrne, writing for Outside magazine in 2022 appears to be one qualifying source, but with the rest of the coverage being... not really acceptable, I cannot currently endorse a keep at the present time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep affiliate links or no, there is a significant amount of independent coverage here. Affiliate links are just how you make money as an online news brand today. The Mashable source linked above does, for example, criticise the product:

> the daily breathing in the morning, and at additional times depending on other information the app asks for, is a bit of a slog, and I’m not sure the information Lumen gives me is something I can’t pretty much intuit for myself. BrigadierG (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment - As already identified, the Forbes source runs afoul of WP:FORBESCON, but I think we can keep based on Wired, Mashable, and Women's Health. Regarding the affiliate linking topic, I don't think consensus has been established at RSN or elsewhere that this is disqualifying. (Personal opinion, not policy: I think the presence of affiliate links is correlated with but not causative of non-independent reviews; affiliate links being so ubiquitous today, we should defer to our other indications on whether sources are editorially independent and reliable, and I think the ones under discussion generally are (Wired is on RSP unconditionally, and Mashable is on RSP with the caveat "especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves", which is not the issue under discussion here).) As other non-keep !votes have been submitted, we'll have to let this run to completion though. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412: Found a Slate article (Camero, 2023) so I'm OK to withdraw any objection on initial examination. Any misgivings on the DUE afforded to sources I can hash out on the talk page. The page should probably be mostly be about the product (and renamed accordingly) since the relevant coverage is mostly reviews but, again, talk page. I believe I'm the only one who expressed any concerns, so we should be all good for early close, though it's not like there's a deadline if nobody wants to actually do the close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 2 April 2024 (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 Red Wheel/Weiser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phanes Press

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

Not notable. Was purchased 20 years ago, no coverage before or after. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're an imprint, merge to Red Wheel Weiser Conari. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, Religion, Spirituality, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Wheel/Weiser if that can be confirmed. Redirect only would be problematic as this is not currently mentioned at destination article. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Wheel/Weiser and add mention of Phanes Press on this article. Phanes Press does appear to be an imprint of Red Wheel/Weiser, see [11]. The article itself does not meet notability guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT - most web results for it are on the websites of online book retailers. Redtree21 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramco Cements

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and India. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite trying to find more sources for the article, I only found one that was useable in a sea of investment news articles and that's not nearly enough. I've added the information to the article regardless. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough to contemplate a separate page solely dedicated on this subject even after some changes by CommissarDoggo. I cannot find sufficient coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Per nom fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of notability. The first source is just a listing, the second is the subject's own web site, the third establishes that it moves crushed limestone from one site to another, and the fourth does not mention the subject. I've tried to find something better (though only in English-language sources), and failed. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability; seems to have been an obvious promotion when it was first created, it's no longer promotional, but still has no reliable secondary sources. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:NCORP. Almost meets WP:MILL and/or WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2024 (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 Leonard Retel Helmrich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarabeefilms

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

Frankly I'm struggling to find WP:SIGCOV for this film company. Since it is an organization it must pass WP:NORG. There's some one-off mentions in books but nothing really about the company itself. nlwiki doesn't help either as there is no article on the company there and lots of the articles there on the films are unsourced. It has also been unsourced since 2011. Should reliable sourcing be found I'll gladly withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Netherlands. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expansion and updating, for sure. For a company that has produced so many award-winning documentaries and movies, secondary sources are indeed in short supply. For now, I added a couple of references, enough to sustain my vote, I hope.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an NCORP failure to Leonard Retel Helmrich, its prime movie director and one of the company's principals, who presently has an article. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails SIGCOV Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leonard Retel Helmrich: The co-founder was redirected here and since this article lacks SIGCOV (even though I can see three reliable sources that is not convincing). There is a need for WP: PRESERVE —which is redirecting again to the co-founder whose article on is still existent. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2024 (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 FLSmidth. The article is getting redirect to a different target page because the page suggested is itself a redirect. I recommend you installing the script that shows redirects in a different color font. You should also actually look at the target pages you are recommending to ensure they are suitable targets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cembrit

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

The original parent company FLSmidth & Co. is notable, but this spun-off subdiary, owned by a few parent companies since, does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG, with no SIGCOV in reliable sources that I can find. Redirect might be an WP:ATD, but it seemed best to bring it to AFD as the article was created in 2009. It's now a subsidiary of Swisspearl, which might be notable enough for a separate article, but that hasn't been written yet. Wikishovel (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Denmark. Skynxnex (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FLSmidth & Co.. If someone creates an article about Swisspearl later on, it can be moved there. But note that dewiki has an additional citation to a book, [12], which may help establish notability. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (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 Tencent Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed LA

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

Game studio of Tencent. Standalone notability appears insufficient, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. IgelRM (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and California. IgelRM (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tencent Games as not passing WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After five years, they've never actually created a game, so this is more notable for being yet another gaming industry money effigy pit more than for its actual value as a game studio. Nate • (chatter) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The studio deserves a page. They've just announced their first game. Wariorio10 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Announcing a game doesn't give you a free pass to have an article about your game and studio, since Wikipedia is not for advertising spam - it needs an encyclopedic reason to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People come to Wikipedia for information. It doesn't matter if it's a little bit of information or not, as long as the article provides accurate information, it deserves to exist. This page can be expanded in the future over time. Wariorio10 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy alone is insufficient for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify given the announced game may come to fruition. But this obviously attracts WP:GNG. Put it this way, if the studio's notability hinges on the studio's announcement of Last Sentinel, an article for Last Sentinel itself would be draftified for being WP:TOOSOON. Pre-release coverage for things yet to materialise should always be dealt with caution as the coverage is largely reliant about what the studio is saying about itself. This is indicated by the presser-style news articles, and inclusion of interviews and YouTube channels. The studio just hasn't reached a point yet where anything can be said about it other than what the studio is announcing and telling media itself. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tencent Games. The studio isn't notable by itself. One announced game won't change that, and sources are more likely to report on that game than on the studio specifically.
Merge to Tencent Games as WP:ATD, unable to find anything that meets GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWorld Technologies

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, though it's WP:LISTED. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases, obvious sponsored content like this in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and on computing news websites, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotional and advertising purpose. Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company is born in 1993, their main products line is nammed eScan (existing in 3 wikipedia languages, (eScan [nl] and eScan Corporate Security [id]), type it in any search engine of the web and you will understand they don't need Wikipedia promotional nor advertising purpose. --Dadu (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Dadu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete – Shouldn't there be an article on eScan? mpany article fails notability guidelines as the sources are all unreliable in the articles as well on a search. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo page with no reliable sourcing on the company --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (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 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLV Group Corporation

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

All of the sources currently on the page are either primary sources, unreliable, or not in-depth. In a WP:BEFORE [13] was the only independent mention that I could be sure was the same company, and only in passing. [14] Is a press release. All of the reliable sources that I could find to support meeting WP:NCORP were for other companies with similar names. Shaws username . talk . 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 23 March 2024 (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 07:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bender Machine Works

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

Effectively unreferenced... major mess. The article's lead suggests it is about a company (which does not seem notable, no hits on GScholar). Much of the body seems to discuss some of their product or products ("Bender Washer/Releaser"). Then there is a big EL farm to their patents. At best I can say this is some historical WP:OR and sadly I doubt anything here can be rescued (GScholar returns zero hits for this "Bender Washer/Releaser"). At worst, this looks like a possible WP:HOAX, although AFD I lean towards ye old OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I agree that it should be deleted. --FPTI (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy article, what in particular about Wikipedia's criteria for notability does it not meet? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Errr, are you serious? From GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Now, are you seeing, well... sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this is a hoax... looking through the page history I think it's just a few different inventions/ patents from this one guy, and the title of the article is misleading. I did a newspaper archive search but the few results are in passing and don't seem to all be about the same subject. Unfortunately I think this is either too obscure to pass GNG, or the actually notable parts of the article are sufficiently obscured by other elements of it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StudioSpace

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

Coverage is routine and lacking significant independent reporting (mostly interviews). It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just trying to understand notability a bit more. Could I ask, would this be an example of independent reporting? https://www.adnews.com.au/news/online-marketplace-studiospace-arrives-in-australia

AdNews is published by Yaffa Media, one of Australia's largest independent media companies.

The article above does mention demonstrable effects on the economic landscape of agencies as a result of beta testing across the UK and Australia. AUJTwikieditor (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't too bad, but it is somewhat WP:ROUTINE. adnews is also a trade publication i believe. She was ^afairy 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is generally not WP:ORGIND of StudioSpace, coming in the form of interviews and reprints of press releases. Regarding the AdNews source, given its promotional content, and comparing to [15], it's almost certainly a reprint of a press release. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, United Kingdom, England, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: i accepted this because i thought it would have a 50%+ chance at AfD, but i personally thought it was very borderline and full of routine coverage. the sourcing is not that bad though with some relevant sources, but the interviews and press release content make it not just yet ready. She was ^afairy 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines, given the routine coverage aas well as sources that are not independent. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Shewasafairy. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association

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

Article created and continues to be edited by COI editor who removed PROD tag on the basis that "We are in the process of editing this page, but we need the copy to be authorised, which can not be done in the timescale that you have provided, it will be carried out soon,". The organisation lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", as a result failing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, any coverage here lacks WP:DEPTH.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable business. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~although this company has not received lengthy coverage, t~~They are well documented to have been a pioneer in private health funding in the UK (one of just three players throughout the 1980s and early to mid 1990's). Even if this were to be seen as failing SIGCOV, I think it should be kept on WP:IAR grounds as a company worth documenting due to its early role in shifting cost burdens to the private sector.
@Eastmain added some cites. I have added several more. The article was in a bit of a sorry state, but I tried to add some context about their role in the move to private and top-up insurance. I also did some section reformatting to make the article less scatterbrained although there's an entire section on WPA Healthcare Practice that is unsourced and I don't have a good way of fixing that right now. Oblivy (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the organisation is lacking "lengthy coverage", not enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the correct policy to apply would be WP:IAR which says that if a policy interferes with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia it should be ignored. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another two links (one is just to support existence of WPA Protocol as the link is dead and not archived), and improved a link to an offline source by linking to the PDF. Previously I added an article from the Times which is significant coverage of the company.

I also had a look at the links added by @Eastmain two of which are offline. There's actually quite a lot of sourcing for the article although the offline links make it hard to know how lengthy the treatment is. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (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. Also, IAR isn't a policy that says "Let's keep articles that fail our notability criteria", it says don't let a rule prevent you from improving an article. There's no rule at play here preventing anybody from improving the article or for showing references that shows notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Eastmain and I have been improving the article and with the addition of the Times article I don't think there's a basis to say this fails WP:NCORP. I've modified my vote comment accordingly. As for WP:IAR it's a foundational policy, and appears at the top of every notability PAG. It absolutely says that where the application of those policies and guidelines would interfere with the project they should be ignored.Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be "improving" the article, but the first test is whether the topic is notable. You mention you've added the Times article but that article appears to be entirely based on a company announcement just like the other articles carrying the same corporate story such as "Insurance to Secure New Cancer Drugs" by Rececca Smith which appeared in the Evening Standard on the same date and also the article "INSURANCE THAT OFFERS LIFE-SAVING CANCER COVER" by Liz Philips in the Daily Mail, also on the same date (both articles available in WP Library). Also just to say, IAR along with all the other policies and guidelines are generally transcluded into various pages, not disputing that, but that doesn't give it any special hierachial weighting or put it above other policies. Feel free to correct me if I've misread your position, I accept IAR encourages editors to go ahead and improve articles and to do so even if that means breaking some rules - but are you saying that establishing notability doesn't matter so long as an article is being improved, and because AfD "interferes" with article improvement by proposing to delete an article, the AfD process is trumped by IAR and you can keep any old topic regardless of whether they meet notability guidelines or not? If so, that's a ridiculous proposition. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 12 April 2024 (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. Sources brought up during this discussion have been found to either be primary or to refer to a different company with the same name. Thank you for your careful review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Petroleum LLC

AfDs for this article:

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

One of the worst articles I've ever come across, previous AfD was a farce. Zero secondary sources. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search came up with nothing establishing notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's something in the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 1999 - Norsk Hydro Offers $2.23 Billion In Stock to Buy Saga Petroleum - By Bhushan Bahree Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal .... There's something about the company here involving legal action which we know would generate other news, Casper Star-Tribune, Monday, June 14, 2010 - Page 26 .... and DEQ, March 16, 2018 - Montana Air Quality Permit #2770-11 a transfer to Blue Sky Energy. Something here on Casetext, 11-12-2015 - Nucor, Inc. v. PetroHawk Energy Corp. .... And there's CMI - Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2000 - The Snorre Field and the rise and fall of Saga Petroleum - Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås (2000). At the very least there's a good reason to consider a redirect. The problem is that we rely on Google and often it's a case of "If it ain't in Google then it don't exist". Well, I've often found that to be the case with how some folk look at things. In the past I've been given mineral and mining publications. Not exciting stuff for most people but within the industry they were relied upon for valuable information, and we sometimes have to look at things in a different perspective. When you go to the physical then there's content there that makes a whole world of difference. Karl Twist (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karl Twist: I have just been looking at the sources you have provided. The first source is about Saga Petroleum, a Norwegian company of the same name. The second source appears to be a classified advertisement placed by a government official, which does not establish notability. The third source is a letter from a government department, obviously doesn't assist. The next source is a primary source, a legal case not even directly involving Saga Petroleum LLC. The final source is again about the unrelated Norwegian company. AusLondonder (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article needs a great amount of improving. Karl Twist (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:CORP --Devoke water 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caster Concepts

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

Subject is non-notable. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see local coverage, and coverage in B2B sources which are generally promotional; neither seems sufficient for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with :Moriwen's analysis and the original deltion rationale.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found relatively a good number of sources that this article meets WP: NCORP including this JSTOR article: MAGNUSON, S. (2021). UP FRONT. National Defense, 105(806), 6–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27023231. Local news doesn't necessarily means it's not reliable. They seems to be reliable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree for the deletion of this article. User:SYNTHWAVER MAN — Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 21 March 2024 (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 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noizbloc

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable record label. Fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I could not find any sources on Google, and nothing has changed since the last AfD. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly speedy) again no sign of notability of any flavour, just like at the previous AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought about applying CSD A7, but I wondered if it had already been rejected for speedy deletion before, which might be why it was nominated for AfD. So, I concluded that AfD would be the best course of action. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find anything else usable online. Here is an analysis of what we have right now.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thecompanycheck.com/company/noizbloc-private-limited/U59201TN2023PTC165258	Provided by company.	I suppose it's just factual data?		✘ No
https://www.planetexim.net/indian-company/noizbloc-private-limited/cin/U59201TN2023PTC165258.html				✘ No
https://aeroleads.com/list/top-music-label-companies-in-india			~	✘ No
https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/689077362/breaking-boundaries-kadhal-kadamaye-emerges-as-a-musical-masterpiece/	Press release.			✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wppt				✘ 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}}.

TLA^tlak 12:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that profiles like in the first citation are often unreliable at least. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to satisfy the GNG, none of their artists appear to be notable either, so coverage feels unlikely to be found... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has essentially no notable artists and is less than 2 years old, so it fails against the WP:MUSIC suggestion of an important indie label. Pretty clearly spam. Chubbles (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly failed WP:NCORP basic WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Shouldn't this be G4'ed instead? Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:19, 18 March 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Snacks

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of listing on the stock market, including from major national newspapers, indicate notability. Per WP:LISTED "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Examples include Fortune India, Economic Times newspaper, Business Today magazine including analyst comment, Mint business newspaper, another Economic Times article. These are just a handful of examples I found in a few minutes. The article is not irredeemably promotional. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there are any reports from independent analysts available yet since the company was just listed recently (48 hours ago). Also, this company being listed alone might not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia for notability. When we examine the references provided, they appear to be same IPO news repeatedly published in multiple Indian media outlets; WP:CHURN, WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all coverage is based on press releases around IPO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 29 March 2024 (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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references are cut-and-paste jobs from the company's IPO prospectus and the rest is mere commentary on their stock market performance with no in-depth "Independent Content" *about the company*. Perhaps in the future some analysts might publish something as suggested above, but I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blindspot (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, coverage is of "top startups" variety and reprints partnership announcements. The best coverage is of the Times Square billboard incident, but it's really not about the company, it's an action by its co-founder, and notability is not inherited. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Korea, United Arab Emirates, Romania, United States of America, and New York. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, corporate spam. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Kovic

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

Fails WP:GNG, and Seed & Sprout fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable awards and local interviews are the only coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards won are minor and fails WP:BIO for lack of in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2024 (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!} 02:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmex Digital

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

An orphan article. Fails WP:CORP. A search in google news yielded little. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage besides some brief coverage of their acquisition of a part of Invigor Group, the sources of which contribute more to the notability of that company than this one anyways. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per A412, the acquisition is WP:ROUTINE as well. TLA^tlak 04:22, 16 March 2024 (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!} 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epos Now

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

Just an SME that fails ncorp Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2024 (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/2024 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain the acronym SME, as a reader is completely lost to what that could be. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it refers to Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the overwhelming majority of UK companies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is subpar, but I think their POS system has enough coverage. US News [16], TechRadar [17], Startups.co.uk [18]. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here I found some of the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are much more reliable sources than those cited in the current version of the page. The organization is pretty notable, per TechRadar and other media coverage. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiawin Sports

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because they own a bunch of cricket teams, that doesn't mean that the company itself is notable enough. I don't see enough independent coverage of them (i.e. other than just saying they own these teams) to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as they have a lot of coverage, including these ones that I just have found: sportskeeda, crictracker, indiatoday and Business Standard.Maxcreator (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to me. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source, as per WP:SPORTSKEEDA, Cric Tracker is a rehashed press release (and the 2 paragraphs about the company looks like something the company has written about themselves), India Today source is just stating how much they paid for a WPL team, as is the BS source (from what I can see, as it's paywalled). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. Of late, we have seen some very low quality sources used to demonstrate widespread coverage. I think that is also the case here. AA (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (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, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the sources make no mention of Indiawin, others are not reliable and the rest are churnalism based on a press release, including the Business Standard. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company holds various teams across the world. Many times, instead of referring to the brand as ‘Indiawin owned,’ they simply say ‘Mumbai Indians owned’ (the biggest franchise under the brand). This lack of distinction is the reason it didn’t receive enough coverage. Additionally, it is clearly mentioned on the Mumbai Indians website that it is owned by Indiawin Sports. So, if we remove ‘Indiawin Sports’ and need to mention that the franchise is owned by Indiawin, how can we accurately refer to ‘Mumbai Indians’ when it itself is not a standalone brand but rather a franchise within the Indiawin brand? ‎Gorav‎Sharma 08:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is about the Mumbai Indians cricket team, then it's not coverage about the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here- just because the cricket team is notable, that doesn't mean the company that owns them are. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The brand is also notable and came into the limelight after purchasing teams in SLT20 and ILT20. That's why I created the article to simplify everything. The sources I added are trusted sources in the cricket field. Still, if the article goes against Wikipedia policy, I have no problem with its deletion. However, I will still vote to keep this article.

Have a nice day ahead! ‎Gorav‎Sharma 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorav Sharma might be better to make List article, like List of cricket teams owned by Indiawin Sports. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (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. Not one of the sources mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 31 March 2024 (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. Thanks to User:Kuru for their comments. This probably could have been closed without a relist. Paid editors are becoming more sophisticated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Book Group

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

"Contributor Content" blogs fail WP:RELY, and thus fail ncorp. She was ^afairy 06:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: USA Today is clearly a reliable source so this alone shows it qualifies as being notable. Additionally, the company has been responsible for publishing several notable books such as "Shifting", "All This Healing is Killing me", "Living and Touring with Alice Cooper", Balaclava, Surviving Hospice and "Leaving Bacon Behind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridicu (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just because a company has helped published notable books does not automatically make the company notable. Contributor Content pieces are not reliable. She was ^afairy 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond what Shewasafairy said, these books have questionable notability per WP:NBOOK. Please note that AB Newswire is specifically a PR platform, so it is not considered a reliable source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the titles mentioned above and they are all on Amazon and notable. I agree that ABNewswire isn't notable or reliable but the books themselves, published by Manhattan Book Group, are notable. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both the USAToday and LAMag sources are very clearly labeled as contributor blog posts. Ceoworld.biz is also a CRO/PR platform. I've removed those. Significa liberdade did a solid job removing many other PR sources, including some known blackhat SEO sources. Searches only show the same junk and more SEO placement. That leaves us with a single directory entry provided by the company. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources from the previous version of the page don't meet WP:NCORP. All of the sources were either passing mentions, primary sources, or sources such as blogs (even though the USA Today source is considered WP:GREL with regards to actual content, that particular source was labeled as a blog). Beyond that, I couldn't really find anything significant in reliable secondary sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not labeled as a "blog". It's labeled as "Contributor Content." There's a difference as far as I can tell. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the analysis of the sources above. Promotional contributor content is useless for establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep USA Today is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. The Manhattan Book Group USA Today article, which was originally included as a reference for this page and has since been removed, is marked "contributor content," not blog. The contributor in this case, Molly Peck, must have been vetted by USA Today to become a contributor. And I'd also assume that her articles are vetted by USA Today prior to publishing. "Editors agree that USA Today is generally reliable. As the largest newspaper in the U.S., editors note that the newspaper has a very good editing system and its centrism." Nowhere does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specify anything about "contributor content" from USA Today being unreliable. There's no distinction between "contributor content" and other articles on USA Today as per Wikipedia.--2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Stojan, not Molly Peck* 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have fixed this. Please see WP:RS/P again.
It's a Delete from me. TLA^tlak 03:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contributor content "unreliability" seems to be your opinion. Not convincing. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact. The blog post is written by a brand marketing 'consultant' (First North Marketing), and has a clear disclaimer: ""Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY network were not involved in the creation of this content". USA Today isn't going to add silly adcopy to professional article like "a singular entity stands out as a symbol of innovation and creativity" or "this independent publishing house is breaking conventions, transforming the publishing landscape, and providing unparalleled opportunities for authors." That's just in the first paragraph; the rest is silly puffery. This is utter, amateur-hour garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline ~~Keep~~ for me due to the Mariel Hemingway connection. Found this article. I know we don’t generally use YouTube as a source, but a video of Mariel endorsing Manhattan Book Group does exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CE80:E280:2517:F719:A387:A11 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'marketsherald' is Hudson Coldblue blackhat SEO/PR farm pretending to be a news site. Same farm as the 'hudsonweekly' blackhat ref added by you to the article. Please note that you only get one vote per person; cycling to another IP on the same /64 in New Hampshire does not make you a new entity. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company not notable and no source for notability found. Powerviki (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inc. source is provided by company, USA Today contributors are unreliable, and Elucid magazine fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable based on news sources found in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.62.210 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added another blackhat SEO dump site, an advertorial on a PR site, and the same press release. As this "company" has been heavily engaged in paid placement and PR efforts, you'll need to dig harder to find actual reliable sources. I was not able to locate anything remotely notable. Frankly, the only keeps are a new COI editor, and two IPs - one of which is located in the same city as the group that runs the subject of the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source meets GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, not marketing PR and spin. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Globe Company Standard

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

Promotional article of a non-notable certification program. Largely unsourced and does not seem to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article provides no sources, The external link section only contains a link to the website of the article's subject. Shadow311 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources I can find are commercial sources that do not meet WP:RS, specifically websites of other companies with the certification that are providing customer-oriented information about it. Redtree21 (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2024 (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 INVNT Group. Deletion of INVNT Group was not considered, as it was added only after several participants already expressed their view, and despite the nom's best efforts, did not come back to opine about the second article. Almost all the Keep views were not based on policy or guidelines. A redirect to INVNT Group will likely only kick the can down the road to that page's AfD, but there's enough support here to pick this as a viable ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INVNT

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

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG) and promotional. There are sources, but they are not reliable. Moreover, stricter scrutininy should be given to them per WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Local Variable (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ahh, a brand experience company (that the article doesn't explain...) and promotional firm. The article uses only PR items (which does not come as a surprise) and I only see events they've organized, so either primary or simple name drops. Nothing extensive or in RS. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in Global News Wire, which republishes press release items. We need some kind of sourcing that's not related (to this brand experience firm) so we can possibly keep here... Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Check readersdigest and eventindustrynews.com . I have just added them. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First one, maybe, but it's only signed by the publishers, so is likely a RP item; second one is a trade journal, we don't consider it a RS Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Reader's Digest Sponsored content is clearly marked as "Promoted Content." Check this page for examples: https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a delete in my eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though it is not MSM coverage, the subject is covered in various trade publications.[19][20][21] desmay (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there's a usual presumption against using trade publications to establish notability: Wikipedia:TRADES. Local Variable (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TRADES says Trade publications should be approached carefully, though it's not stated that they are outright unusable. If there's any proof suggesting these publications might have a conflict of interest or a direct relationship, such information should be provided. In the absence of such evidence, it's appropriate to proceed under the assumption of good faith. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those source are press releases (see this wire), routine coverage WP:ORGTRIV and/or sponsored content. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These here are new citations not in the article when the page was nominated and got the above Delete vote, so all should be reconsidered:

readersdigest.co.uk - Reader's Digest is well known and reputable publication since 1922

eventindustrynews.com - Very indepth article

meetings-conventions-asia.com

sunshinecoastnews.com.au - behind paywall, but it appears to be a good article about the company

In addition, there a bunch more good articles such as:

ceoworld.biz - CEO Spotlight, but majority of info is about the company

exeleonmagazine.com - Also about the CEO, but a good portion is about the company.

thedrum.com

Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seen as badgering voters, but you did directly ask for us to reconsider, so I will. My view is unchanged. The sources are not reliable. They don't meet the higher degree of scrutiny for independence in relation to articles about companies (to stop marketing/trade publication websites enabling the proliferation of promotional articles). It should be noted the UK Reader's Digest is different from the American one. As the page you link suggests, it's operated under licence. That's probably the only somewhat reliable source; the article needs many more. While further contributions are welcome (including making the article not sound promotional), keep in mind that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Local Variable (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : The company is mentioned on Woodstock's own Wikipedia page as a partner.

"The scheduled date for the "Bethel Woods Music and Culture Festival: Celebrating the golden anniversary at the historic site of the 1969 Woodstock festival" was August 16–18, 2019. Partners in the event were Live Nation and INVNT."

CAMPAIGN is a world renown source speaking directly on the company. This is a global company, which would naturally have global media sources.

Another source (clients are world renown - Amazon, Zillow, Microsoft) directly about the company - Event Industry News.

Another source directly about the company: Campaign BRIEF

Another source directly about the company: Exhibit News

Company does General Motors CES Keynote: Biz Bash 184.74.225.194 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — 184.74.225.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The Wikipedia page for INVNT outlines the company's role as a global live brand storytelling agency, detailing its history, key projects, and approach to branding and events. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree and Local Variable. The vast majority of sources are press releases, partner/sponsored content or based mostly on the what the company says about itself which are primary and not independent. Others are routine coverage and non-RS that exists for promotional purposes. Almost all sources are trade publications which are not helpful for establishing notability (WP:TRADES). S0091 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have also several non-trade publications such as 1, 2. These are business publications. Trade publications would be those related to Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations industries. Reader's Digest is also not a Trade publication. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I only just noticed there is another page, INVNT Group. The same rationale applies. I am adding it here. Sorry for the inadequate BEFORE. INVNT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (courtesy ping: @S0091: @Oaktree b:) Local Variable (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding @Desmay, @Loewstisch, @Z3r0h3r000. @Local Variable see WP:BUNDLE for how to include more than one article in a single AfD. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Local Variable (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Local Variable INVNT is a Subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. INVNT GROUP has many other subsidiaries. I have compared their citations and they have only a few citations in common and content of these articles are different. Possibly we can make the argument to MERGE the pages, but to me it appears that both entities have enough coverage to deserve their own pages. In addition, I do not believe your addition of INVNT GROUP into the same AFD after a few days is proper, as some prior votes have already been placed, so the deletion of that page should not be based on whatever the outcome of the results is here. Maxcreator (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : INVNT has enough coverage to be considered notable. Reader's Digest Article seems to be the best one, but there are others. INVNT Group is the parent company should not be included in this AFD, due to its late addition. Maxcreator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to INVT, the "post" on Reader Digest came from INVT, "The post INVNT – Transforming Brand Potentials appeared first on INVNT GROUP NEWS." so this is native advertising and why there is no named author, simply "Reader's Digest". This is a prime example of pretty much all the sources. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so evident to me if what you say is the case. The original post is gone. The content of the post on their website may have been different so without seeing it, we cannot say that it was copied. It would not make sense that an article in their own website would speak in 3rd person rather than 1st person. For example why would a post on their own site say "This forward-looking agency has achieved a lot..." if they were talking about themselves?

However, I stick with my KEEP vote based on several other articles available on the company. Maxcreator (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why ... if they were talking about themselves? Because that is what PR people do. They try to hide the fact that they are talking about themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep !voters are failing to critically analyse the sources. The tone of the Reader's Digest article alone sets off alarm bells. The Reader's Digest article is clearly advertising disguised as an article. Other sourcing to trade publications aren't helpful in establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any voters are from the United States, you'd know that you wouldn't have that extra national federal holiday added in 2021 called Juneteenth.

Without this company that would not have been possible. The last federal holiday established in the US was Martin Luther King day in 1986 (35 year lapse) - let that sink in on the notability and power in question here.

The company is also called out on Opal Lee's Wiki page.: "In partnership with global marketing agency INVNT Group, she promoted a petition for a Juneteenth federal holiday at Change.org; the petition received 1.6 million signatures. She said, "It's going to be a national holiday, I have no doubt about it. My point is let's make it a holiday in my lifetime." 2603:7000:4D3D:173F:4C2F:9DB5:AE2:E053 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing INVNT Group with INVNT. It was INVNT Group the parent company that promoted the Juneteenth and Opal Lee. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator of INVNT Group page (not INVNT), I also oppose lumping these two AFD's after the fact. The parent company's page is distinct from its subsidiary INVNT. It is like lumping Pepsico (which owns 22 subsidiaries) and Pepsi, and saying they are the same and they should both get deleted.

I also vote to keep INVNT. Reader's Digest being a credible well known publication is unlikely to break the law and publish sponsored articles without paid disclosures. The Reader's Digest article does not sound overly promotional either. It is just talking about the history of the company and their accomplishments. How else can you write an article without mentioning a company's accomplishments? . Here are some examples of articles on Reader's Digest that have been tagged with word like PROMOTED CONTENT or UNBIASED PARTNERSHIP: 1, 2. This indicates that they do disclose sponsored and paid posts.

The citations previously provided by earlier KEEP voters appear satisfactory to me. Trade publications are permissible and not prohibited by the policies. We simply need to scrutinize for signs of sponsored content or PR articles. For instance, these three articles seem authentic to me. For example, these 3 articles here look genuine to me. 1, 2 3

Also only EventIndustryNews.com can be considered a trade publication the rest are business publications. It is not accurate that all their citations are trade publicaitons.Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you oppose the AfDs being merged? All contributors have been notified. You have had an opportunity to contribute. What's the practical injustice in merging them? I'm happy for the closing admin to relist it, but it would be bureaucratic silliness to list them separately when the concerns raised apply to both. In any event, If the parent company isn't dealt with in this AfD, I intend to list it separately later anyway. Local Variable (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that a few references have been entered here, that speak to the subject's notability, though there are not an abundance of these. Knox490 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's improper to add additional articles for consideration for deletion midway through a deletion discussion. And the way it's been done, XFDCloser, which is the tool we use to close discussions, will not recognize the addition so it will likely be ignored. I encourage the nominator to remove the AFD tag. Any bundling of articles should occur when the nomination is posted, not after. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz This has been done. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I'll consider nominating it separately. Thanks. Local Variable (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a source analysis table would be helpful to this discussion as there is disagreement over the independence of the sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak keep~~ – While there are many press releases, after its removal, I feel like there is just enough in Australian trade publications to make this enough for a smaller article.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business/invnt-transforming-brand-potentials	Clearly advertorial, has had diminishing rep as well. Native advertising as S0091 said.	WP:NEWSORG? sure		✘ No
https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt	Labelled as ad	blog?		✘ No
https://www.meetings-conventions-asia.com/News/Whats-On/INVNT-bolsters-live-and-virtual-offering-with-new-agency-group	press release	Seems like a minor trade publication		✘ No
https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/	Benefit of the doubt	~ A minor local paper, wordpress theme?	sure	~ Partial
https://ceoworld.biz/2020/02/17/ceo-spotlight-scott-cullather-builds-a-global-footprint-for-invnt/	Assumption	Promo website		✘ No
https://exeleonmagazine.com/scott-cullather-the-wizard-brand-storytelling/	This is a blatant ad	Their about section rings bells	~ about founder	✘ No
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/04/25/invnt-secures-number-client-wins-increasing-revenues-over-54m	"Content created with:" – ad.	Established trade publication	This is WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/partnerreleases/2020/02/20/husband-and-wife-co-founders-of-invnt-join-forbes-speakers-network/?sh=729e400a7fd6	Partner release	staff		✘ No
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/08/23/case-study-samsungs-galaxy-note10-unpacked-launch-with-invnt	"Content created with:" – ad.			✘ No
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/invnt-separates-parent-company-time-inc/1441710?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social	ya	Established trade pub	WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496		Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	~ a bit WP:ROUTINE.	~ Partial
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799		Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	~ a bit WP:ROUTINE.	~ Partial
https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/	~ No byline? Might be press release	~ Not sure		~ Partial
https://campaignbrief.com/global-live-brand-event-agency/		I don't think so, it's "About" section goes directly to its "advertise" section		✘ No
https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt	press release			✘ No
https://www.brandinginasia.com/invnt-group-and-msm-form-strategic-partnership-to-work-with-brands-across-the-motorsport-industry/	press release	https://www.brandinginasia.com/pricing-plans/		✘ No
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-group-expands-to-india/493847			WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/move-week-invnt-hires-new-chairman/1136609			About John Wringe.	✘ No
https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region		~ Seems like a minor trade pub in Australia		~ Partial
https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174			Pay-walled, but a case study seems okay?	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TLA^tlak 03:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is another route. TLA^tlak 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the table, great work. To me, the obvious conclusion from it is the article falls well short of GNG. Every source has a problem. In my view they can't be summed up to resolve the problem. Nearly all are trade pubs that are just unhelpful in determining notability. Local Variable (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yeah, I get it, there are issues with a lot of the sources. Trade publications are questionable. I'm personally at the weakest weakest keep, as I think there could be enough RS here for a stub or something. TLA^tlak 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this together TLA. Walking through the ones which you identify as counting toward notability, almost all of them are press releases/announcements and/or based largely on what the company says:

https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/ is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/ is a press release, Business Wire ProQuest 883465109, and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops)
https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174 is written by a marketing executive/"content creator" and based largely on what Laura Roberts, INVNT's managing director, says. This is primary source, not independent and may fail WP:RS.

Also the vast majority are trade publications and per WP:TRADES there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Either way, none are WP:NCORP qualifying sources for WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add, I agree none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would strongly suggest the consideration of a redirect to INVNT Group for those who believe delete is the choice here, as an WP:ATD. It is verifiable that INVNT is a subsidiary of INVNT Group, so that only makes sense. TLA^tlak 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources supporting the notability of that company? I don't want us to get sidetracked (you'll see the remonstration above about a late joint nom) but to me it's one the same. Neither is notable. So a redirect might be futile. If a redirect is the outcome that's fine, but I think the target article needs to go through AfD too since it's equally skating on thin ice. Local Variable (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, INVNT Group has an article at the moment. I'm between redirect, draftify, weak keep. Maybe the parent company is on thin ice but we can't assume that until a full discussion. TLA^tlak 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to INVNT Group. 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. The source table above includes "partial" as an option - just to point out, sources cannot be used to establish notability if they don't meet *all* of the criteria. That leaves one source listed as meeting the criteria - except that analysis is flawed and the article is a "puff profile" PR piece for the two featured companies and which fails to include any in-depth information on the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to INVNT Group: I have not found adequate sources meeting SIRS. Per HighKing, the source assessment table actually shows that this doesn't meet NCORP. Redirecting is an appropriate ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to INVNT Group but will likely nom that article given it has some of the same or similar sources. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This AfD is a quagmire because, regrettably, I didn't know this article existed. I don't think they were Wikilinked (or it wasn't obvious if they were). The closing admin should consider closing this AfD as no consensus, and the two can be renominated together for a joint AfD. A redirect is also fine. Local Variable (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with this. TLA^tlak 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going through the Keep !votes, it is a little confusing as to what the position is currently. For me, none of the sources meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If anyone feels one or other of the sources are being overlooked or unfairly dismissed, can you point to specific sources. It would also be helpful if you also identified specific paragraphs/pages within the sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the topic company (not products/services/execs/related companies/etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside obvious problems with some of the keep votes, such as one from a single purpose account and those stating a conclusion without reasoning - the problem is that redirection to the parent company's article has been raised as an ATD, but that article suffers from the same problems as you've identified. Since they weren't joint nom'd, we can't nuke both. The idea is to renominate both and reconsider it. Local Variable (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Local Variable if this is redirected to INVNT Group, then that article is nom'd and consensus is to delete, the redirect will be deleted as well so same outcome. I personally don't see a need to re-discuss this one again unless of course it's closed as no consensus. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Local Variable (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. TLA^tlak 20:39, 3 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchpad LA

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

Contested PROD, appears to fail WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going through the sources on the page:

Source analysis
Source	Analysis	Conclusion
#1	not significant ("Suster also founded LaunchPad LA", end coverage).	✗
#2	dead link, not on the wayback machine.	✗
#3	note that this is a blog hosted by the NYT, not the NYT proper. Not reliable.	✗
#4	blog on medium dot com. Not reliable.	✗
#5	forbes contributor, not reliable.	✗
#6	own website, not independent.	✗
#7	A real source! But a local one.	~
#8	the noticeboard doesn't have a clear consensus on pando as a source. Dubious.	~
#9	techcrunch "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability".	✗
#10	another forbes contributor.	✗
#11	not significant ("went on [...] to become a partner at a tech accelerator, Launchpad LA", end coverage).	✗
#12	not independent ("customer stories" section)	✗
#13	another real but local source.	~
#14	plausibly real, local.	~
#15	blog and not independent.	✗
#16	business insider syndicated content "should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." this is syndicated from a medium blog. not reliable.	✗
#17	local and not significant ("I applied to LaunchpadLA").	✗
#18	business insider is dubiously reliable, and it's a passing mention anyway ("Incubated at the SoCal tech accelerator Launchpad LA")	✗
#19	Passing mention ("which was part of incubator Launchpad LA") in a dubiously reliable source.	✗
#20	Local source again, focused on the company they funded.	✗
#21	Not actually mentioned in this source.	✗
#22	passing mention ("came out of the accelerator program LaunchpadLA").	✗
#23	Not significant, reliable, or independent (podcast by someone whose company was funded)	✗

Overall: some local coverage. One source of uncertain reliability. Nothing else that contributes to notability. Doesn't qualify for WP:NCORP.— Moriwen (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoriwenI am not sure why you considered local sources 7, 13 and 14 not reliable. LA Business Journal is a respectable publication. It's like saying LA Times or NY Times are not reliable. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree they're reliable sources! But per WP:AUD, coverage in reliable local sources doesn't establish notability.— Moriwen (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualifying a local source in Los Angeles or New York is different from applying the same in Idaho Falls or Merrillville. We appear to have two reliable sources here (7 and 13 are the same publisher). ~Kvng (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 is ok, but is one source about Los Angeles startup funding significant coverage? Techzulu doesn't appear like mainstream newspaper and is primarily a list of "graduates". Like I said in my PROD, we already have articles on Mark Suster and Adam Lilling.

IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per the evaluation above sources 7, 13 and 14 are reliable sources. LA Business Journal is a notable publication. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in LA Business Journal and TechZulu. Additional coverage in other outlets. ~Kvng (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article intends to be a history of "incubator program", TechZulu would be a significant source if it were a list of companies funded by the program. The LA Business articles, describing the program among others, aren't sufficient significant coverage for WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from your previous statements that you find these sources insufficient. I disagree. Please stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you find my reply partially redundant but the burden is generally on the nominator to respond. I also found an article from Pando Daily and one that looks independent from Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that you have a burden to respond? ~Kvng (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles all mention this fund in passing. I'd put a brief mention in the articles for each founder and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 3 April 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 10:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoottle

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources generally fail WP:ORGIND (interviews with the founders, reprints of office moving announcements, coverage of their own awards) or are trivial coverage (one-sentence CNN mention, startup rankings). ~ A412 ^talk! 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Greece, and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helo Wcquiddich,

I have re-purposed the interviews with founders (so that they do not fail WP:ORGIND). Have removed the reprints of office moving announcements and the coverage of their own awards (since it is not notable enough, understandably). Have also removed references that are not independent (e.g. the company's website) except where relevant (e.g. how their service works).

As for the trivial coverage, I have moved the CNN reference elsewhere (which is more relevant), and have got rid of the startup rankings.

Aside these issues requiring a quick-fix, I still believe that this subject is eligible for a Wikipedia page due to its substantial coverage on the internet. A quick google search will prove my point.

What are your thoughts? Mattheozard123 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattheozard123, Wcquidditch handled the deletion sourcing that helps alert interested editors that this AFD exists, A412 is the editor who nominated the article for deletion and started the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how can this issue be resolved? I removed the citations that seemed to have been problematic - And the stuff that remains on the article is from reliable sources (and being in Greek doesn't undermine reliability). Mattheozard123 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability guidelines, analysis of the article's source shows that almost all of them are unreliable/mentions. No sources found online. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of the sources are reliable - Just because the sources are in greek doesn't undermine their reliability.

This company has been around for a decade. It has been used as an example by established greek news, won first place in North America's largest hospitality convention, and has even had a case study in a book published by the Entrepreneur (a fairly established and notable publisher). Its clients are also some of the biggest hotel chains in the world.

Although some of the sources were questionable, I am in the process of removing them. - That aside, I genuinely do not see a reason for an outright deletion of this article. Mattheozard123 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 4 and 20 are RS per Source Highlighter, but are funding announcements. Rest are simple announcements or items not connected to the company (the DW article in particular). I don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (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!} 04:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Rock Entertainment

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

Kept at previous AfD based in part due to conduct of nom, this company does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Zero secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Europe. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was titled Carmen Media at the time of the first AfD, so the earlier nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Media. (No opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Article has no proper references. Google yielded no additional news. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominated previously at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 27 March 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack Developments Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD was closed without consensus, and without any improvements since then, still fails notability guidelines, especially NCORP. BEFORE search turned no reliable search at least. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references from reliable sources about the death of a worker and reports of poor-quality construction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, which would repeat the past result, it would be nice to establish one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references from a quarter-century ago look good to me. Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2024 (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 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Energy

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

There is a Turkish company called Atlas Energy (Atlas Enerji in Turkish) but this one does not seem to have enough sources to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yala Batik

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

The company doesn't seem notable as there is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The sources found so far only briefly mention it, and checking WP:BEFORE reveals the same pattern of passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Thailand. GSS ^💬 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, including the online arms of Kom Chad Luek (2011)[22], Manager (2018)[23], Matichon (2022)[24], and a documentary broadcast on PPTV (2023)[25]. The last two are already cited in the article. There's room to discuss adjusting the article scope to cover the textile itself rather than the group (which is its only producer), but that's a matter for the article talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, these are merely passing mentions and do not meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. All three sources you mentioned rely solely on statements made by its founder, as indicated by the phrase "Piya said" throughout the articles. GSS ^💬 04:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are entirely about the group's textile making, and are certainly not mere passing mentions. A news source reporting information from subject is still independent if such information has been vetted and fact-checked by the reporter. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability guidelines; I can only find this that can pass but not enough to establish notability other than mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confident in the sources provided above by editor Paul. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2024 (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, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing significant presented; merely passing mentions. Fails CORPDEPTH. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2024 (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 and no indication further input is forthcoming as discussion had stalled four days before the relist Star Mississippi 16:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Druxy's

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

I've done some research into Druxy's and it doesn't seem to be notable at all. If you search in Google News, they only mention a few things such as an acquisition and a listeria incident. Indeed, I would even say that this coverage is merely trivial.

Also, Williams Fresh Cafe doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia.

If there's any new info about its notability feel free to share it otherwise, this article should be deleted. Thank you. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh, there's coverage. Food-borne illness outbreak [26], [27]. Not strictly about the company, but their food handling got several news reports about the outbreak. Those are just the first two I pull up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite the outbreak [28] and another incident [29]. They're likely notable for the number of outbreaks that have happened alone. There's coverage in this book from 1986 about Bruce Druxerman, the founder [30], but it's paywalled from my location. Google doesn't want to pay for displaying news, so most sites are walled off... Frustrating. VPN to the rescue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NCORP requires better sourcing than a few trivial mentions here and there related to a listeria incident. None of the above sources are significant coverage about the company. You must have guts to pretend that "A person contracted a Listeria infection after eating food sold at the Druxy's restaurant in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre" or "The sandwiches were purchased from the Druxy’s restaurant in the cancer centre" count for something in terms of notability. --Cavarrone 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 15 March 2024 (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. and no indication another week will bring on more input Star Mississippi 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Crosse Technology

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

I have conducted WP:BEFORE search and I am not finding independent coverage beyond La Crosse Tribune local paper, and repeated mentions of "La Crosse Technology's Atomic Digital Alarm Clock with a retail value of $29.95!" in Popular Science magazine. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Local newspapers are still good sources. I added a couple more cites from the La Crosse Tribune, but yeah good cites are scarce, and I wouldn't complain if this ends up not being enough.--~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neko-chan:, WP:NCORP places emphasis on source quality due to susceptibility of companies/organizations article to public relations editing. WP:AUD specifically calls that at least one of the sources providing significant coverage must be regional or national, so based on these guidelines, I find the company unable to satisfy notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:AUD purely local mentions do not contribute towards notability. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 15 March 2024 (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 IDBI Bank. ✗plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDBI Capital

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

Unsourced, written like a LinkedIn page, can't find anything on Google BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches about this subsidiary operation find little beyond announcement coverage [31] which is insufficient to establish specific notability. A redirect to the article on the IDBI Bank parent might be an alterative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IDBI Bank: I suggested above that this subsidiary lacks evidence of specific notability. Despite coverage in recent days of a case settlement with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (e.g. "IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Settle Case With Sebi; Pays Rs 13 Lakh As Settlement Fee"), I don't see that as amounting to substantial coverage. A redirect to the parent seems the best outcome. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (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. Passions ran high in this discussion, and strong arguments were raised by both sides. But in the end, participants could not reach a rough consensus about whether the sources establish sufficient notability to meet our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zupan's Markets

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

Hyper-local niche family owned grocery store with mere three stores in the Portland, Oregon metro area. Fails WP:NCORP Coverages are all routine and hyper-local. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this source, which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This screams sensationalism. Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:SIRS. Also, looking at the article creator's edit history, my experience strong suggests it screams public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source looks reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria, particularly given its editorial policies, thus fulfilling all of the WP:GNG requirements. Also, that publication only chose 12 businesses across the whole country (some of the others are based in Florida and Michigan for example), so it clearly bestows this business with some sort of significance. Do you have any concrete evidence that would discredit the quality of the source? Vague unsupported claims like this screams sensationalism wouldn't be helpful. Lastly, the article creator's edit history has no bearing on the notability of the topic. Left guide (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an indiscriminate source, but this is far different; it's choosing these 12 among thousands in the U.S. Unless there's evidence that this is a WP:COISOURCE (which doesn't appear to be applicable here), I don't see how this source wouldn't count towards notability. In any case, we can wait for input from others. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The 12 Best Grocery Store Deli Counters, Ranked" source is from a website that describes itself as "made up of passionate foodies" focused on providing "opinions on which items are worth buying" - so in addition to being an example of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, it also appears to be a low-quality website focused on advertising and promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide I would say it's comparable to something like these 1 and 2. "Example of trivial coverage" mentioned above describes it well. Please have a look if you haven't had a chance to see their response. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll also chime in and vote for keeping the page alive. Zupan's, at one time, was a larger chain with more locations in/around the Portland metropolitan area. Just because it's hit a rough patch in recent years doesn't mean its Wikipedia page should get erased from existence. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion the sources cited here clear the notability bar. Constablequackers (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination, coverage is all routine local business happenings. One location closing. Small family run business, nothing terribly different than any other such commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GNG and comments above by User:Left guide and User: Constablequackers. I have removed some of the promo philanthropy stuff and added several additional reliable sources published by major outlets. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG. I also see coverage of Zupan's from Supermarket News (a trade periodical covering the grocers industry). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto:, please refer to WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ORGIND - none of the information is sourced from persons unconnected with the company (suppliers, customers, partners, etc are all considered "connected"). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked falls under independence of the author, I would think. Is there some connection between Supermarket News journalist Barbara Murray and Zupan's Markets that I don't know about? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the notability guideline, WP:GNG is not the only consideration, and we should also examine the What Wikipedia is not policy; the WP:NCORP guideline incudes a focus on a common issue of advertising and promotion in company articles, and assists with an evaluation of sources by outlining generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. Regardless of editor intent, sources related to companies can tend to be promotional, and if an article is primarily built from such sources and lacks the significant coverage described in the WP:NCORP guideline, it can be excluded according to the notability guideline and WP:NOT policy. For example, this article includes several bizjournals.com sources - which is American City Business Journals, a source that describes itself as "the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers," so this does not appear to be the type of independent content that helps support company notability. There are also several news reports related to the death of the founder; announcements of store openings and closings and products (examples of trivial coverage); several reports about donating food boxes (see WP:ORGTRIV); and references to various books (cited without page numbers) used to support limited content in the article. The WP:SIRS coverage needed to support a standalone article does not seem to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis above. In order to establish notability, references must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND (among others) and nothing I can find appears to do so. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Part of the problem appears to be that the article currently overfocuses on the Portland grocery stores owned by Zupan's Markets. In the 1990s, Zupan's Markets was based in Vancouver, Washington, and operated many other stores in both Washington and Oregon, including Food World and Food Pavilion stores. The 1994 opening of the Food World in Cascade Park to much fanfare (as a Costco-like store without membership with rollerskating staff...in the midst of a grocery workers' strike), followed by its closure one year later and subsequent sale to Safeway, is interesting and well covered by the business section of local newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per WP:AUD and WP:NCORP you would suggest as notability supporting pillars? These hello and goodbye announcements are ok for confirming closure and opening but they're not contributing anything to asserting notability. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find!, thanks for sharing. This entry should be expanded with more detail about Food World and Food Pavilion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of local franchise openings and business closures are examples of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline, and the first source also appears to be substantially dependent on statements from the store spokesman, e.g. what he says about the timing, his expectation for turnout, his description of the concept, his mention about commercial accounts, and his general promotion of the store; while some of this source could be used to expand the article, it does not seem to help support notability, including because of the promotional aspect. I can't access the second source ("This clipping has been marked as not public") but it appears to be local coverage from The Columbian. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cielquiparle and Another Believer have added additional content and citations to bulk up the article. I urge those who voted "Delete" to have another look at it and see if that's still their stance. Constablequackers (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Constablequackers Don't hold your breath. Up to 47 sources, but I doubt anyone would want to revisit or take the time to put together a source assessment table. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hang in there. The deletionists and overthinkers around here have discouraged me from working on no less than a dozen Portland related pages. Wanted to create a few, update others, etc. It's a total drag. Such a shame that so many editors are more interested in being pedantic and bickering over incredibly minute nuances of wiki-regulations with the passion of a lawyer in the final chapters of a John Grisham novel instead of, you know, sharing knowledge with the world, which is what this site is supposed to be all about. Unbelievably tedious. Constablequackers (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after additional content and citation added. We're now up to 36 references in the article and not a single one provides in-depth independent content about the company. For example, this article from The Columbian was added, described as an "in-depth article interviewing ~6 sources" but equally acknowledging the sources are "all connected in some way". So none of this is Independent Content, fails ORGIND. None of the stuff about openings/closings is relevant for the purposes of establishing notability as those articles inevitably all rely, entirely, on the announcement/PR from the company and therefore has no Independent Content, also failing ORGIND. If Another Believer or Cielquiparle believe there are a couple of particular sources which meet NCORP, please point them out here and also point out which pages/paragraphs in particular they believe meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the advice to content creators from the closer of the Seattle Coffee Works AfD may be helpful to consider here: it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your follow up, Cielquiparle, because my intention is not to discourage article improvement at AfD; I linked to the Seattle Coffee Works AfD as a way to echo and emphasize HighKing's request for SIRS coverage to be identified in this discussion, because in that past AfD, it did take a long while to sift through the sources that continued to be added during the discussion.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask editors who are improving an article and advocating keep during an AfD to identify multiple sources to support the article according to the NCORP guideline. I think it is unreasonable to add dozens of sources, suggest notability-supporting coverage is somewhere in the midst of the additions, and other participants should review all of the new sources to determine whether they agree with this assertion of notability. These discussions are collaborative, not a battleground.
And I also admire your article improvement work, and think your comment below is an example of collaborative AfD participation (e.g. identifying sources for evaluation) that can help further develop the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX, linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of policy is discouraged. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. Frankly I am disappointed to see so much WP:WALLOFTEXT. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not presented as though it is about the other article, it is about the discussion. My hope is for this discussion to collaboratively focus on the sources, guidelines, and policies that apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if Another Believer could genuinely point to any part of the so-called "quality journalistic sources" which met NCORP, he would do so. Inundating an article with references might show "coverage" but doesn't establish notability. We've all the same objectives - to ensure WP has high-quality well-sourced articles on notable topics. This isn't the Yellow Pages or some sort of alternative marketing platform. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume I'm avoiding jumping through hoops. I'm just choosing not to jump through all the hoops because I don't care enough. There's a difference. I've cast my vote and I'm moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lean towards deletion of the page; no sufficient reliable sources + the lack of general notability. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic
Striking comment by blocked editor. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Another Believer, what is the guideline or policy basis for striking the comment and !vote? Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I thought this was common at AfD. Feel free to remove the strike. Who cares. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:HEY. I actually agree with a lot of the analysis above, poking holes in various corporate press release-driven media coverage as sources establishing notability, although I think some of the categorical statements are too broad brush and extreme. Obviously this article and the sources cited have changed a lot over the course of the discussion, and by now it's clear that Zupan's Markets are not "just" an obscure family-owned business that no one has ever heard of outside of Portland. In fact, it got a lot of nationwide media attention in 2012 when it was the location for the "No Grocery Bag" sketch on Portlandia, and was even mentioned in TIME magazine. Going back to the 1990s, Zupan's Markets' practice of offering fresh fruit samples to customers was considered unusual (and "exciting"), earning it a favorable mention in Supermarket News. In terms of independent analysis of Zupan's Markets, that seeks to provide a "balanced" view, I would point to the 2017 Oregon Business article, "Zupan's departure dismays local businesses"; it assesses the impact of Zupan's Markets in the Belmont district over time as a catalyst for mixed-use development in a high-poverty neighborhood, and includes the opinion of other businesses in the neighborhood, with zero commentary from Zupan's. Another piece of significant coverage that seeks to take an independent, balanced view of Zupan's Markets is the 1999 Business Journal article "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions"; although it includes quotes from John Zupan and his lawyer, it also includes other quotes from the Portland City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. If this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you feel that only national chains like Safeway, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods deserve Wikipedia articles, there is nothing I can do; but if your objection is to the gushingly positive descriptions of Zupan's or the "gentrification" of the food industry, I've tried to include some critique of Zupan's to balance out the otherwise rather favorable descriptions of the business. (But I fully expect it might not stand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring "gushingly positive descriptions" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth "Independent Content". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The "Shock Departure" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not "assess the impact" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as "significant coverage" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here to Cielquiparle's comments below so as not to mess up the formatting and subsequent discussion. In a nutshell, you're trying to dominate the discussion, repeating the same sources but not materially addressing the criticism, instead throwing shade at editors who point out why those sources fail to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines and accusing them of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or seeking a "Platonic level" of coverage which you say doesn't exist in the real world (despite the vast number of topics that meet the guidelines). This is not helpful to the process. If you genuinely want to "let other people make up their minds", then step back from the discussion yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Agree (with the last part). Trying to step away. Only keep coming back since pinged. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most in-depth articles on Zupan's Markets include two feature articles: "John Zupan runs grocery business at full throttle" which appeared in the Portland Business Journal in 1996, and "FRESH THINKING: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" which appeared in The Columbian in Vancouver, Washington, in 2003; here is the continuation of that article on Page 2. In addition, there are numerous articles about John Zupan and Zupan's Markets after his death in 2011, like "John Zupan, Portland grocery 'maverick,' dies at 66" in The Oregonian in 2011. The obvious WP:ATD is to merge or more accurately, split, this article about Zupan's Markets into two biographical articles about John Zupan and Michael Zupan, since the notability threshold for articles about people is much lower than the threshold for organizations. That said, I do not believe this is the best outcome from a Wikipedia point of view; both individuals are mostly notable in the context of how they ran their family-owned business over a 50-year period, and I still maintain that the article satisfies WP:NCORP on the basis of these and additional articles provided in the earlier Keep paragraph above (for which I deliberately looked for non-feature articles focusing on a specific question about the company that didn't rely heavily on interviews with the founders) and that to dismiss all of it completely in pursuit of a Platonic ideal of coverage that doesn't exist in the real world misses the forest for the trees. I understand that HighKing and Beccaynr do not agree with this view, so please do not keep repeating that you do not agree and it is not good enough because it only serves to discourage further thoughtful participation in this discussion by other editors due to WP:TL;DR. We differ in opinion. Let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been identified and an ATD suggested, so in the spirit of a collaborative discussion, and because we operate from a baseline assumption of good faith, including that editors can change their minds based on new evidence and ideas, I considered the sources and the suggested ATD.

Source review

As to new sources presented:

the TIME magazine mention is not substantial coverage of the company, this is a brief mention in a report about Oregon politics and Portlandia
the 1996 mention in Progressive Grocer about having fruit samples is an example listed by a produce merchandiser and is one sentence about Zupan's, so also not substantial coverage
the 2017 Oregon Business source is not significant coverage of the company itself, but instead a brief report that seems more focused on the building, the neighborhood, and new development
I agree with HighKing that the 1999 Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions source about an upcoming liquor license administrative hearing, with substantial quotes from Zupan's attorney is not substantial coverage to support notability per NCORP; we're not looking for a platonic ideal of coverage, but instead a level of depth and independence to allow us to develop encyclopedic content that is not advertising or a directory entry
Eater Seattle quoting a commenter in a brief post about Zupan's is also not significant coverage of the company
the 1996 Portland Business Journal is a bizjournals.com source that I discussed in a comment above; a promotional publication, and this source is substantially based on what John Zupan says about himself, what a "Business associate and racing buddy" says, what a close friend of Zupan's says, what Mike Zupan Zupan, etc - not independent content that can support notability
the Columbian "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" source is substantially based on statements from Michael Zupan, John Zupan, the landlord of one of the stores, and an architect who works with Zupan's - this is not independent content that can support notability
there are several sources related to the crash that killed John Zupan, including related criminal proceedings that do not support notability for the company, and the Oregonian source noted in this discussion is substantially based on quotes from people connected to John Zupan, and has some biographical content - even if this was substantially independent, the company does not inherit notability from an owner.

As to the suggested ATD, while WP:BASIC anticipates significant coverage could be developed by a combination of independent, reliable, secondary sources, this does not seem supported because the same challenge for developing encyclopedic content on this company and biographies of its owners appears to be the limited and often promotional sourcing that is available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) - updated comment to fix typo, expand source review Beccaynr (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Beccaynr:, I too consiedered ATD, but with company articles, unless there's a parent company, finding the appropriate merge target isn't always possible. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls OK, it makes sense that it's difficult to merge to an article that doesn't exist, so I've created the article John Zupan as a possible merge target for consideration per WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:, To me, that seems like content forking to ~~game the system to~~ retain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I would ask that you WP:AGF. It is a sincere attempt to offer a solution for those that think Zupan's Markets should be deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls To confirm, if the article is merged and redirected to John Zupan, it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to merge and redirect to John and Mike Zupan, but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with creating an "anchor" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets WP:ANYBIO. I've not put time into investigating. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls As I said in an above paragraph, I'm OK with redirecting John Zupan to Zupan's Markets. Maybe there is no need to have two separate articles. I just thought it was helpful to "see" it so we could decide accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:I have looked at your addition about plastic bag. This is tangential mention of Zupan's and pure fluff of no real substance.Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Yes exactly! I wasn't putting it forward as evidence of in-depth coverage. I was simply presenting the TIME magazine mention as evidence that it's not true that no one has ever heard of Zupan's Markets outside Portland. While the Belmont store was still open, many travel guides (and the travel section of the Arizona Daily Star for example) specifically mentioned it as the "real location" of that Portlandia TV sketch too. By itself, it wouldn't justify keeping the article, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making patties. No amount of trimmings that can be ground up replaces a large thick piece of steak even though they might be able to make large hamburger patties. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Frank, Gerry (2012). Gerry Frank's Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Guide Book. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-879333-23-9. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Founded by the late John Zupan in 1975, Zupan's is a locally-and family-owned market that serves Portland's food-loving community. Likened to farmers markets, Zupan's focuses on quality, selling everything from the best meats and wines to the freshest produce, baked goods, gourmet deli products, specialty foods, flowers and more. Touting a unique grocery shopping experience, Zupan's stores are meant to indulge the senses, inviting customers to see, smell, taste and learn. Regularly scheduled beer, wine and cheese tastings are among customer favorites. Full-service floral departments (Burnside, Boones Ferry and Macadam locations) have beautiful fresh-cut flowers year-round and provide custom design, wedding and event services. The deli features handmade, home-style items with grab-n-go meals, gourmet sandwiches and catering. Bakery items are delivered from 35 of the best bakeries around the Portland area."
2. Fehrenbacher, Gretchen (2003-06-15). "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level". The Columbian. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
  The source contains quotes from the subject but there is sufficient independent reporting to amount to significant coverage. The article notes: "Zupan's, with headquarters in Vancouver by no means has the lock on specialty groceries and prepared foods. Among the most prominent are Nature's, Whole Food Markets and New Seasons. Trader Joe's, ... Zupan's stores are 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, compared to the 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of the traditional supermarket. ... At one time, there were eight stores, including one store in Battle Ground and two in Vancouver with one on Mill Plain Boulevard and another in Salmon Creek. They were operated as Zupan's Food Pavilion, and, in the case of the Mill Plain store, Food World. Today, there are no Clark County locations. The first two stores in Vancouver were bought in 1989 and sold in the mid-90s."
3. Giegerich, Andy (1999-09-17). "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions". The Business Journal. Vol. 16, no. 30. p. 1. ProQuest 225384612.
  The article notes: "Imagine the bustling, hip Southeast Belmont business district without Zupan's Market. Belmont residents don't want to think about it. But it could happen if the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the Portland City Council and the Portland Police Bureau revoke the store's liquor license."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zupan's Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you well know by now, "sufficient coverage" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in the past. Of the sources you've listed, the first is a tourist guidebook which includes a summary which has been copied for the most part from Zupan's website at that time, fails ORGIND. The others have been explained as failing NCORP above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGIND: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. In other words, it's OK if the SIGCOV focuses on a specific aspect of the company, or a specific milestone, or a specific event, as long as it does so in-depth and in a meaningful way. Nowhere does it say that every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company. For this reason, I stand by my original argument that multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:NCORP. (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says "every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company." In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the notability guideline, specifically that Wikipedia is not advertising and promotion; the three sources listed above all seem to be contrary to NOT policy - a promotional guide, a local feature substantially based on promotion by people connected to the company, and a promotional publication with a substantial focus on what the company's attorney says about an upcoming local administrative hearing. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2024 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrybuilt

AfDs for this article:

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

Realtively small company making kitchens and furniture with no particularly notable features. No obvious ways of linking to other Wikipedia pages Newhaven lad (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, California, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expected to be voting delete, but this, weirdly, has coverage. Looks like much more than some small manufacturer; nationally-scoped company with both mainstream and design-industry coverage. Besides the decent references already in the article (The New York Times (though its a bit short), Dezeen, Dwell, Surface), [32] (some interior design industry publication), [33] (Sunset). And to the nom, while taggable, an article being WP:ORPHANed isn't a deletion rationale. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being an orphan isn't a reason to delete - but when I couldn't find anywhere it might link to that made it feel less notable Newhaven lad (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also some coverage in Architectural Digest [34], I think we have just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. I commend the nominating editor for their effort to ascertain the article's notability, and encourage them to read WP:CANTDEORPHAN, if they are unaware of it, for possible fixes in this situation. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (!vote change) per subsequent discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:36, 24 March 2024 (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. ALL of the sources rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or info from the company. There are no sources I can locate that meet GNG/NCORP criteria, including all of the ones listed above in this AfD (some of which are a mere 5 sentences). The key isn't "coverage", but depth of Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:HighKing. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: twice recreated by a SPA (COI declared). No significant independent coverage; it lacks both notability and importance (I know, imp is not among WP criteria, but having importance one may expect coverage, hence an incentive for a wikipedian to dig deeper). - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 24 March 2024 (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 Lyoness. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyWorld

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

Only reliable source I could identify is Tiroler Tageszeitung. But the article appears to be about Lyoness, which already had an article at Lyoness although lead states now myWorld. (Speedy deletion was contested) IgelRM (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Austria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge content to Lyoness and move that article to this title. If I'm correctly understanding, Lyoness rebranded in 2017 but its article is horribly outdated now; most of the post-2017 information is in this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate page, as it easily passes general notability but needs to be updated with sources from the other lyoness page (background and history). 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would virtually have to rewrite the entire article based on information from the Lyoness article. IgelRM (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lyoness and move that article to this title. Reliable sources do not establish notability for myWorld, the Austrian Ltd independent from that of myWorld, the current iteration of the Lyoness family of scams. There are some hits in the Austrian joint library system, but they all just go to "investment" "newsletters" in the business of laundering press releases. GR Kraml (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added multiple reliable sources from Der Standard, Kleine Zeitung, L'Hebdo, Handelszeitung, etc which provide sufficient and for sure independent description of the MyWorld/Lyoness and thus establish the subject's notability. --Moem-Meom (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Lyoness and MyWorld are related by sources, is a merge into Lyoness feasible? IgelRM (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure, the discussion is on deletion and both topics are notable though share shared past Moem-Meom (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so, I see both pages are eligible for Wikipedia, at least since I've added enough "meat" (reliable sources) to meet the General Notability Guideline. The discussion is on deletion, and the consensus is that the topic is notable. Moem-Meom (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was never any doubt that the Lyoness family of scams was notable; what's at issue here is whether we need two separate articles for its two trademarks. The sources you added to the article are not helpful in this respect. About a third of them leads to 404s or 410s or otherwise fails verification. Most of those that superficially work are explicit about the fact that "MyWorld" is just a new CI Lyoness has adopted after its original CI became radioactive. In addition, the Background section is massively padded with inappropriate WP:INTEXT, and language like "garnered significant attention from notable newspapers" straddles the line between original research and desperation. What is going on here? GR Kraml (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep German language sources are top and notable with in-depth topic coverage both on MyWorld now and previous history, especially focusing on various journalistic investigation. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with new SIGCOV added recently and a long quite problematic history, the company (which is the biggest cashback service globally as far as I know) easily passes GNG. I also think the distinction and evolution from Lyoness to MyWorld are significant, to justify separate coverage and articles. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lyoness to here and then redirect to here - according to the suggestion by A412 above. The company meets notability but it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles on the same subject matter. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lyoness: this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I'm not sure if the title should stay at myWorld or Lyoness. There might need to be an RM to determine the common name. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nad's

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:14, 17 March 2024 (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/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a local business (with multiple locations) rather than a notable company. It fails WP:NCORP. Knox490 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news mainly comes up with product reviews. 1st hit is an interview. So lacking reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes there are Google hits, but no sources with SIGCOV denoting any notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2024 (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.

Companies proposed deletions