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 delete‎. WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Egg Records

AfDs for this article:

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

created by mistake, meaning to comment on for user Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged as G7. @Jonpatterns: Please note that you can tag any article that you create under this speedy criterion without needing to bring it to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 4 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sag & Tre

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

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I think the article meets WP:GNG but nowhere near WP:NORG, nor does it need to meet WP:NORG. Resources for the label are scarce. Soybean46 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am the owner of Sag & Tre :) Soybean46 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't qualify as one of the more important indie labels as suggested by WP:MUSIC; has no notable artists as far as I can tell. No cultural impact sufficient to justify an article. Chubbles (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to fight my corner here, don't I, as a small label owner :) Despite Wikipedia's policies on WP:MUSIC, which I comprehend, are thorough. Please also check my contribution history. Someone has rejected my edits on the grounds of WP:GNG for the Draft:Paavo Siljamaki article, which probably by that policy, would be acceptable to remove.

Except, there isn't many sources available for the "organic house" genre. Should we now be deleting all WP:MUSIC articles based on that? Because Jono Grant (DJ) article doesn't meet WP:GNG again, but nobody has flagged it. When I edited other articles in the gaming section, someone argued that me arguing edits in other articles is unacceptable. Soybean46 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because I am closely connected to the Above & Beyond (band) article, not by association, but by choice, I have to argue that I selected the wrong article, and instead meant to select Tony McGuinness, which doesn't meet WP:GNG but another Wikipedia conflicting, by the way, rule, stipulates that no other articles should be mentioned. What gives? Check my Euro Truck Simulator 2 edits. Soybean46 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little education is in order. Soybean46 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like someone else, less connected to the topic should have an input. I would argue that the article has a cultural impact, but what Wikipedia rule does that cover? Soybean46 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do two or three secondary sources argue that the subject has a cultural impact? Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. So remove it. That's my point. But my other point, is what I said above. Remove all the other articles while you're at it. Otherwise, my contributions are pointless. Soybean46 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soybean46, I'm trying to follow your remarks and failing. This discussion just concerns the article Sag & Tre, not other articles you mention and I don't understand why you would not be able to edit on articles in other subjects. But let's keep this discussion forcused on this one article and whether there are reliable sources that can supply SIGCOV. If you know of other references that can help establish notability, please bring them to this discussion or put them in the article. While it may not seem this way to you, our goal is to find better sources in order to write stronger articles that justify Keeping them.

If you have general questions about editing on Wikipedia, reliable sources or Wikipedia standards for notability or other policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no more sources I can find for the time being. Please delete the article. I think a consensus has been reached. Soybean46 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (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!} 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cognota Inc.

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

Was prematurely moved to mainspace by author instead of letting it be reviewed by AfC. Appears to be more for advertising. Not sure what L&D industry is. Appears to be written not in a formal encyclopedic tone. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. L&D stands for "learning and development." There literally hundreds of such apps. See WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2025 (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 MediaWorks New Zealand#Radio. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Otago

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect to MediaWorks_New_Zealand#Radio as subject is not notable on its own merits, but is part of the history of a more notable entity. Espatie (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with RadioWorks: as suggested. A standalone page is unnecessary here based on the sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2025 (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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts Water Technologies

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

OK, lets see what the references here suggest.

Reference 1 is from GlobalData, which would at first glace appear to be a reliable source. That said, it would seem verify that a company of this name simply exists, and does not support its notability as a corporate entity
Reference 2 simply asserts that this company is a subsidiary of Emerson Swan, an article that I can see has never been created. While not in any determinative, this would appear that a notional WP:REDIRECT from subsidiary to parent company would have negligible chance of passing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Reference 3 is from that respected broadsheet Foster's Daily Democrat. That said, the lack of a byline and the text "Webster Valve, Inc" suggests that it may possibly be paid content rather than journalistic content
reference 4 is a Home Depot link that I am unable to access.
reference 5 is a product page from Lowe's
reference 6 is an assertion on Yahoo Finance that Watts Water Technologies is listed (as "WTS") on the New York Stock Exchange

It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts is a component of the S&P 400. That alone makes it notable. KMaster888 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a subsidiary. KMaster888 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on @KMaster888's argument

Taksoh17 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that being listed on a stock exchange does not make a company notable, as per WP:LISTED. Coverage by independent sources is still required to meet notability. SallyRenee (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: looking back over this, it might appear to an independent observer that is an instance of the AFD process being used to basically repair an article, rather than assess it on its merits, and lacked an initial policy-based deletion rationale. Those should have included WP:CORP, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. Heck, it looks like this to me, and I am the nominator. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Think this could do with more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a lot of in-depth news coverage but there are analyst reports available and thus this passes WP:NCORP per WP:LISTED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable independent sources are available, thus meets WP:CORP, i.e.:
- It doesn't mix with oil, and the market is drinking it up (2005). . New York: New York Times Company. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/doesnt-mix-with-oil-market-is-drinking-up/docview/2227109456/se-2
- Water-products firm's profits boost stock: [1 edition]. (2006, Nov 02). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/water-products-firms-profits-boost-stock/docview/405041058/se-2
- WATTS WATER: [THIRD EDITION]. (2006, Aug 03). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/watts-water/docview/405029416/se-2
- New foundry will produce lead-free plumbing products. (2013, Jun 24). The Union Leader Retrieved from url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-foundry-will-produce-lead-free-plumbing/docview/1374230277/se-2 SallyRenee (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dclemens above, there are analyst reports (beyond reports that simply regurgitate share price movement and the company's financial reports) available on this company and these sources meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 18 January 2025 (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!} 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Computing

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

Fails WP:NCORP; I'm unable to find more than a passing mention of this defunct retailer. It's mentioned briefly at the two references (first can be found in IA circa 2006), but not at a level passing WP:SIGCOV. In general that appears to be the pattern: a mention that someone worked there, or that someone bought something from there, but not substantial information on the company itself. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspapers had gobs of ads but no real articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many ads in Los Angeles Times newspapers but that's about it. Timur9008 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nivi, Inc.

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

Appears wholly promotional and does not established WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Products, Internet, Kenya, Nigeria, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources fail WP: GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very very promotional. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure promo Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no valid sources in this article to prove any type of notability. I read them all. As others have stated, this is very promotional in nature. The only "reference" with "Nivi" in the title, has no author and is not a newspaper. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The use of AI, and ChatGPT and tele-health in particular, are upending the practice of medicine. 10/12 of the references are not about this company, but rather about this new technology. The only two sources about the company are not reliable. It's written in far too a promotional tone. The page would have to be completely re-written and sourced anew to be an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2025 (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!} 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldcross Cycles

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

Stores appears closed in 2013: https://www.rotorburn.com/forums/index.php?threads/goldcross-closing-down.263422/ . Very scant article with few details. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2025 (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 TRX2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford BioLabs

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

It seems like this article was entirely created for promotional reasons. The only thing notable about the company is their product, TRX2. An article for the founder Thomas Whitfield also exists, which seems to be full of promotional content as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three articles to one, probably to TRX2. There's just about enough for one article here but certainly not for three. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Their hair product has gotten into the news, and not all of it promotional and favorable. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (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!} 19:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CELFULL

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

Promotional article for a supplement producer that fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is all actual or regurgitated press releases or other non-independent work (such as a journal article that Celfull paid for in part). No independent coverage here that isn't WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, California, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT due to a failure of valid sources. Rosentad (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Media Group

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

This company is not notable and it lacks enough credible sources to justify its own page. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, Asia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm confused about what this company actually does is notable. From all appearances online, it just seems like a portfolio or holding company of disconnected trade publications that it buys from other publishers. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (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 Minerva University. Owen× ☎ 13:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Project

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

The notability seems redundant with Minerva University. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, United States of America, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article should focus on demonstrating its notability with independent, reliable sources and maintaining a neutral tone. Adding more detailed information about its programs, achievements, and impact, while following Wikipedia's style guidelines, would improve its quality and relevance. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I can't tell how this is notable, apart from the "University", and there's no explicit allegation of notability or reason given why this fork was created. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Agree with the above, seems like this is just what the entity was called early in its history when it was a "project" rather than an actual university. No reason for a separate article when it's already covered sufficiently in the history section of the main article. MCE89 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brookmount Gold

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

References are mostly primary or profiles. Not meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. - The9Man ^Talk 10:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Indonesia, Canada, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG and poor sourcing. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:RS.

Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look to see if there was anything missing in the way of reliable sources that might improve this and found nothing that wasn't very niche. Not sufficient for WP:ORG. Simonm223 (talk)
Delete Does not meet NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Rosentad (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Visual Arts Network

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

Subject fails GNG and NCORP for not having significant coverage from independent reliable sources and not merely mentioned for verification. Sources on the article are not reliable. Cassiopeia talk 09:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Cassiopeia talk 09:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 9 January 2025 (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 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaNaDr

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article was deleted at AFD a year ago. The present article was created a few months ago, covering recent action against the firm by the Singapore Ministry of Health. Searches find this Straits Times item concerning other providers' reactions to that situations (and perhaps Healthcare_in_Singapore#Private_healthcare should be extended to cover telehealth). However WP:CORP indicates that regulatory actions and their coverage are not in themselves indicative of notability of a particular firm, so it seems appropriate to bring this to AFD as it doesn't seem there is enough in-depth coverage to overturn the previous deletion consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nominator. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mekomo (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Coco

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

Previously moved to Draft, which means that WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral draftification. Consensus based draftification remains a possibility alongside deletion or retention. Fails WP:NCORP as presented here, crammed with WP:CITEKILL, is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill business without any significant coverage in reliable sources, press releases, blogs, and industry publications notwithstanding. There's literally not a single verifiable fact on the page, such as a stock market abbreviation or sales data, making it not even wrong. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhillComm Global

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

No indication of WP:SIGCOV, possible advertisement TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No coverage online outside of self-published materials and the limited, PR-style, Forbes article (fails WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV, as mentioned in nom.). Could also be self-published. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. Blatantly promotional tone, for a small PR firm less than four years old. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not a free web host nor LinkedIn. We are a charity, and using us is a violation of our tax-exempt status. Protect against likely re-creation. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam, no reliable press coverage. BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (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 11:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future Supply Chains

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nippon Express, which has a controlling interest in this NN company. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if the Redirect option has any more support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the third source is borderline. The first two are not worth considering. guninvalid (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough RS sources to prove its notability. Conducted a search for possible more sources but found nothing as the company's name is generic bringing results very unrelated to the company. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Future Group or Nippon Express, per WP:ATD-M. Yuvaank (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Opposed to Redirect to Nippon Express because that page itself is poor with multiple issues that has promotional content. RangersRus (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal India Thermal Power

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No sources at all. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of information sufficiently accessible to determine what it is. I'd be open to a redirect to India energy law or a holding company. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (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 The keep arguments are arguing that it seems notable, while also acknowledging that the article as written, with the current sourcing does not actually establish that. It seems there is a consensus that this article should not be in article space. Draftifying gives a chance for these issues to be rectified without leaving the article in public view. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kent RO Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a public company with 40% market share it should be notable but the references in the article certainly need improving so hopefully some new ones will be presented in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1, it does pass notability imo but it clearly needs major work before it can be passed of as an encyclopedia entry. Xoocit (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are weak for now. This article needs improvement with significant coverage from reliable sources. For now it is a Delete or Draft. B-Factor (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (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!} 19:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Talent

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this business. Seems to fail WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any independent references that would satisfy WP:GNG. Waterfelt (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn`t meet GNG --Moarnighar (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2025 (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!} 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage, or really much coverage of any kind in reliable sources. It's a bit strange since I would expect a publisher of academic material to be notable, but I don't see how the article's subject passes WP:GNG. Maybe it's just hard to find sources in Google when most of the search results are works published by the company. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publisher's only outputs seem to be a journal that doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS and a series of academic monographs that probably don't meet WP:NBOOK. If either of their publications were notable there might be an argument to keep and rename, but I don't think that's an option here. And agree that I'm not seeing any sign that they could meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Food insurance

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

This company seems to be defunct, and was probably non-notable from the get-go. The website fails DNS, as do most of the cited sources. Being mentioned in a comedian's bit doesn't count to establish notability. Google search for "food insurance" produces no relevant results, and more focused searches just find this article. Cast it into the fire! -- LWG ^talk 03:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Websites, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any sources that contribute towards notability. foodstoragereviewer.com was a self-published blog. The best I could find is a brief story from Talking Points Memo and an opinion piece from NYT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's the Business Inside piece cited in the article and this piece from The Week: [1], but both of those are more about Glenn Beck than the company itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heavily relies on self published or non reliable sources.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2025 (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!} 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find the WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG to be met here. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: informal networking meetings over coffee are about as routine an activity as you can get, nothing about this stands out as notable. I'm going to get a coffee after making this comment, not going to write an article about DnB's Morning Brew. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propeller Venture Accelerator

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Ireland. Imcdc Contact 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant found other than passing mentions. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a close one. I found a book from 2017 that appears to have more than a passing mention, and the SiliconRepublic article is also definitely not trivial. That makes two seemingly independent and significant sources, which would be an WP:NCORP pass by the definition, but I don't actually have the book and I'm not sure of SiliconRepublic's reliability so I can't verify that this sticks the landing. This is a comment, not a vote. Tessaract2^Hi! 14:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website is down but we do have the archive here. Keep in mind this is from 2014 while SiliconRepublic is from 2011 so details will differ.

Looking at the SiliconRepublic lets see. The first two parts are what Terence Bowden, Venture manager at DCU Ryan Academy says so not independent. The seventh place ranking we can see is from the website. The overall package details seems to be copied or reworded from the website itself such as €30k package, office space, mentoring etc. Details might be different since website date is different but it feels like its just copied from there. There's details about mostly non-notable startups it has funded which can be traced to the portfolio that you can see here Its just a copy of website since even the order is the same. Then some interview from a related party. And finally the last part seems to be a generic boilerplate description.

Basically as you can see a large chunk of info from that SiliconRepublic article is either copied from the website or just quoting a related staff. It sort of telling the website itself is about the DCU Ryan Academy and the Propeller Venture Accelerator is just a section of it.

I guess we need to have a look at the book. Imcdc Contact 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that in-depth! Since you need multiple sources that meet all guidelines to meet WP:NCORP, and I didn't find anything else from a WP:BEFORE, I'm now voting delete. Tessaract2^Hi! 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Nothing material found in a WP:BEFORE search. The COI/SPA overtones (and clearly promotional intent of the article's creation) are also difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 16:17, 31 December 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!} 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoinGecko

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

Non-notable crypto nonsense. Even by the low bar of our crypto standards, it’s still not notable. Lacks any meaningful independent coverage and is, like most crypto in 2024, a dime a dozen. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CoinGecko has been used in academic research ([2], [3]) and their API has brief tutorials in various books ([4], [5]). The coverage within each source is thin, so I'm not sure whether it's enough for a GNG pass. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly primary. I don't think the sources above add to notability either. Nothing for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also did some google scholar searches and this company is used a lot as a data source. Some news orgs rely on their data too. I found this from Journal of Data Science in Germany which uses them throughout a lengthy article as one of two examples of a data provider and this conference proceeding which has a paragraph and bullet points that explain their services. Oblivy (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - Coingecko is important inside crypto, but I'm surprised to see zero RSes on this article - it's all crypto blogs. There are RSes that mention Coingecko in passing, but nothing I know of that's about Coingecko. We can have an article when we have RS coverage sufficient to pass WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (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!} 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanskere

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

Both this article and Evans Akere are promotional while relying on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The same creator wrote both and also added the brand to Fashion in Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evans Akere. Most references are about Evans Akere. Not enough to make the brand notsable.Shinadamina (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deletion discussion about Akere. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator of the article lists the brand as a client on his Instagram profile which is linked from his Wikipedia profile... 🄻 🄰 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, there's a conflict of interest and nonsensical claims (luxury and ready-to-wear are incomprehensible). Bearian (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable per WP:NCORP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly fails WP:ORGCRIT. We also cannot redirect to Evans Akere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in addition with a lot of claims that cannot be verified. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2025 (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 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lecoanet Hemant

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are a couple of reliable sources here and there, but it's not quite significant coverage. The rest of the sources are suspect, because, as noted above, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India just verifies existence, but that's it. Please ping me if you find better coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Pumps

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Madhya Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This company lacks significant coverage to meet the case of Wikipedia's Companies Notability Guidelines B-Factor (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zensai AI

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

Contested draftification, so off to AfD. Company fails WP:NCORP, and it's a particularly egregious case of WP:ADMASQ, almost to the line of a G11. Contrary to the article's claim, it does not appear on the 2024 FT 1000 list (not that that would confer notability if it did). The rest of the sources are limited to:

Corporate press releases ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10])
Articles by Zensai employees ([11], [12])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like Zensai's description of its products in app stores ([13]) and other Zensai sponsored content ([14])
A promotional product review ([15])
Sources that I'm guessing were added in error since they either don't mention the company ([16]) or are the website of an entirely different company.

WP:BEFORE search turns up only more corporate press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Denmark. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the source review above, PR items and other sources that aren't reliable. I can only bring up PR items in my searches as well. Appears to be PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PR Items all removed and all product promotion taken out - suggest the article is renamed to Zensai (Company)- also noted the placed where Zensai has won prices with the prior name LMS365 and noted journalists of articles 87.116.23.14 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article on Zensai AI meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, with independent coverage highlighting its innovations in AI applications across healthcare, finance, and education. It documents industry recognition, impactful partnerships, and contributions to global challenges. The article is neutral, well-sourced, and provides valuable information on a significant player in the AI field. I recommend retaining it and addressing any concerns for compliance with Wikipedia standards. Hussainxyz (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you not use AI tools to generate responses and actually address the source analysis in the nomination. (GPTZero rates this as 100% probability of being AI-generated.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Any concerns" are mainly the lack of sourcing. Ask the AI to help find some, which it likely won't, but anything's worth a try. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP per source analysis by nom. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open to a weak keep if somebody has access to certain sources, see my comment below. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article was updated on the 8th of January to remove all of the PR — 188.177.23.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Some PR may have been removed, but the sources remaining are still WP:ORGTRIV and don't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After another inspection, it appears there's some actual analyst coverage here, The company was also covered by Gartner Analyst Tori Paulman as a Cool Vendor, and The company is also featured on analyst firm Fosway's Learning Management 9-grid by Senior Analyst Fiona Leteney as well as the Talent and People Success 9-grid by Chief Insight Officer David Perring both theoretically link actual analyst reports behind them. Here's the problem: it's all paywalled. If somebody has access and could confirm these analyst reports contain significant coverage and aren't just entries in lists, I'd be open to a weak keep. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't analyst reports on public companies envisioned by WP:LISTED. Lots of companies get ranked in various Gartner lists and it's almost never WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Gartner Cool Vendor is not a Gartner list - the Cool Vendor nomenclature will only be given to organizations who challenge the thought process of at least 3 Gartner analysts because the publication will mention a specific company by name - other Cool Vendors are the likes of AirBnB, Atlassian, Splunk, Slack ... most went on to change industries 188.177.23.247 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source analysis above. Couldn't find those analyst reports, but agree that being given a title by Gartner and co is typically very unlikely to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Everything else I could find seems to be promo. MCE89 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company was included by Danish Chamber of Commerce as well as winners of Red Dot Award which is only awarded for best-in-class design 87.116.23.14 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, but also getting Déjà vu like a lot of similar AI-related company AfDs, where promotional coverage is significant, but nothing worthwhile outside of that. Snowycats (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company name is not Zensai AI - I have motioned that the author changes it to Zensai (Company) 87.116.23.14 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article references are bunch of PR distributed sources. Nothing brings it close to WP:NORG. Mekomo (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NCORP and reads like WP:PROMO. Madeleine (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (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 00:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Century Textile and Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with some primary and not independent. All sources are just WP:ROUTINE, trivia and passing mention. No significant WP:ORGDEPTH in the sources. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (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 List of banks in Uganda. ✗plicit 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of investment banks in Uganda

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:NLIST. No independent reliable sources that establish notability of the list (especially regarding investment banks specifically) as a whole. Also most entries are not notable with most of the ones having entries being about the parent company instead.

We already have a general list per List of investment banks. I also cannot see why this country gets a specific list for investment banks while most other countries have their investment bank list as a category instead. Imcdc Contact 11:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Lists, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 11:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of banks in Uganda. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge blue-linked only entries to List of banks in Uganda. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of banks in Uganda: bit of an odd and unnecessary list FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2025 (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 Nirma University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalabs

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Article made by COI user. Imcdc Contact 10:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Imcdc Contact 10:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not have enough media coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nirma University. Non-notable incubator and appears to have ceased operations within a couple of years of its establishment [17]. Yuvaank (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2025 (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 00:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repro India

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Print Week is potentially a good source and start for a stub, but I don't know. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom with again one of those organization pages with no significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP. Some sources on the pages are trivia and stock stats and others are just passing mention. If anyone can find significant coverage on the organization, please let me know to review but for now this page fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2025 (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. I see a clear consensus here. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kej Keir, can you please list the numerous reliable sources present in the article for other editors to evaluate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 13:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to identify any source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The content is supported by churnalistic articles and listings on e-commerce sites like Justdial.com and Indiamart.com, falling well short of meeting WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. MER-C 13:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Initially, I thought it would be easy to delete; however, after evaluating the sources (including newly added ones), I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:REOPEN as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A lot of this material looks like the sort of undisclosed promotional content warned of in WP:RSNOI although the Adobo article does, in fact, look legit. That being said a single good source is insufficient to establish sustained and lasting notability. Willing to change !vote if additional reliable sources are brought forward. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no independent coverage of this company. All we have are some interviews with the founders, partnership announcements, database listings and press releases. None of these sources pass the WP:SIRS check, so they are ineligible towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources meet WP:SIRS. I agree about the Adobo article singled out by Simonm223; still, it's about a single commercial and is not useful for establishing notability. It actually isn't possible to write a reasonable and non-promotional article on this topic using these sources. I can't find any better sources.—Alalch E. 12:55, 11 January 2025 (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 00:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RNB Research

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Media sources are either dead links or have no mentions at all. They should be reviewed carefully once again. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 12 sources on the page with 6 404 error dead urls. The other 6 have no significant coverage on the organization and not that it helps to pass notability but I did not even find a pass mention. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:ORGCRIT. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Air (India)

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

No IATA code, no ICAO code, no call sign. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to be a small charter plane // helicopter tourism operation which doesn't meet WP:GNG. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the article is lacks verifiable content about its operations, history --Kej Keir (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2025 (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 00:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niyogi Books

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources, that has some with just passing mention and about launches and not independent. And some others have no mention at all about the publishing company. This page is WP:PROMO and fails WP:NCORP with no beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (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!} 08:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villagers Film Studio

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it shows the studio's importance with reliable sources and achievements --Kej Keir (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no SIGCOV about the studio in any of the sources cited in the article. There are only trivial mentions which are not enough for WP:NCORP Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources cited do not give any significance to the studio. Mekomo (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete . Sources do not have significant coverage on the production Studio. The sources are mostly trivia. Fails to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Not opposed to Draftify if creator can find and add multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage on the production company. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2025 (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 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar Lifesciences

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article with poor sources with no significant coverage covering WP:ORGDEPTH in multiple secondary independent reliable source. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2025 (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 Lakshmi Mills. ✗plicit 12:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Machine Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source and that is poor with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (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!} 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Lakshmi Mills, with a selective merge possibility. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2025 (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 14:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haldyn Glass

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too promotional for wiki --Moarnighar (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2025 (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 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with poor and primary sources. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you take out "Money Works for me dot com" and other incredibly unreliable sources, we are left with promotional matter mixed with original research. We are not a free web host or marketplace, but a charity, and in 2025, everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiveColab

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Under Hive Colab there are multiple sources that support notability, see New Vision, Independent, AsiaTechDaily, Nile Post, Pctechmag, and BBC FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple sources but after looking at them, I do not feel comfortable using these to establish notability. My initial comment is the article is about HiveColab while the focus on a lot of these articles is about YSAU (Youth Startup Academy Uganda) which is one of the accelerator programs under it. Per WP:NOTINHERITED while they are related, we cannot use the program alone to cover for the organization above it and HiveColab should be able to stand by itself. Also something irking me is how promotional the whole thing seems. I see mention of co-founder Barbara Birungi and judging by the state of her article, it feels like there is some PR campaign being held for her (and possibly her firm) on the internet. Anyway:
  - New Vision: There seems to be a related press release for this here. This is reporting on a ceremony for YSAU, a program under Hive Collab rather than Hive Collab itself. Half of it are just promotional quotes by related parties. If you look at the remaining content, most of it looks very similar to the press release. Edit: ITC states it is involved in implementing YSAU so it’s a related party. The press release from Hive Collab is here which has similar wording content.
  - Independent: First thing I noticed is this article is not authored to an individual. There's another site with the exact same content here so I’m wondering if this is just a form of a press release. The focus is on Ugandan startups signing deals at Gitex in Morocco. The focus is not on Hive Collab but the entrepreneurs under it. The latter half of the article can be ignored since not about Hive Collab. So taking out the quotes, its pretty much a non-notable entity named Dain Leaders Corporation signing an MOU with Hive Collab and the supposed benefits in a press release manner.
  - AsiaTechDaily: Non-notable entity GCCEI signs an MOU with Hive Collab. That's kinda it. While it is authored, it seems like a regurgitated press release of a routine deal given how short it is and the language used.
  - NilePost: This one does seem to be more than a press release (I think). But in my view looking at it, the main focus is on YSAU companies attending Gitex in Morocco with a chance to show themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much analysis on Hive Collab itself. Edit: Here is the original press release, the 15 YSAU startups are directly copied so the source is now much weaker.
  - PC Tech: There seems to be a related press release (or update as called) for this here. This article is not authored to an individual. Another ceremony of people from YSAU graduating. Large chunks of it are just kinda copied from the press release.
  - BBC: Very brief mention of Hive Collab and in fact seems to be more on Barbara Birungi herself.
- So looking at all of them, they fail WP:SIRS in my view. To save time just give the best three independent in-depth sources going forward. - Imcdc Contact 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You should be clear when you say a press release to indicate how did you come to that conclusion.
  
  All of what you labelled as a “press release” is either not a press release by the organisation, see New Vision or is not one at all, see Nile Post. And I am not sure who did you dismiss the mention by the BBC. This organisation is not in Global West, it is in Uganda and still mentioned by the BBC. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  FYI, I have updated the above analysis.
  
  See WP:PRSOURCE. A press release doesn’t need to directly come from Hive Colab. It can come from an affiliated party. We know ITC is affiliated because it itself says the YSAU is implemented by ITC, Hive Collab and several other parties. So no independence there. WP:PRSOURCE also mentions how less reputable news sources will write an article based on a press release which we are seeing here in examples of churnalism. Btw I have found some of the press releases by Hive Collab and updated above based on it. For example we can see now that Nile Post has indeed copied a chunk out of a press release.- Imcdc Contact 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in books:
- The Bright Continent published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Digital Divides published by Taylor & Francis.
- Innovate for agriculture published by CTA.
- Empowering African Women Entrepreneurs in the Fashion Industry published by Springer International.
- Citizen-Driven Innovation published by the World Bank.
- UNESCO Science Report published by UNESCO.
- Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Development in Africa published by Springer International.
- Africa’s Development Dynamics 2021 published by the African Union.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its because Google Books is cutting off my access to see the whole thing, but almost everything seems to be a very short mention. A lof seem to be just something like this: ilab (Liberia), Hive Collab (Uganda), Etrilabs (Benin)... and thats it. The only one that offers more is the UNESCO one. But its just one short section giving very general (and sort of generic) description of Hive Collab. I don't think this is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV for an WP:NCORP subject. Imcdc Contact 11:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all of them are mentions and not a dedicated chapter or even a whole page in the book. I will add the full excerpt later as most of them are not as you described.

Still, given it was mentioned in all of these sources (books/News) = coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Whether you consider that satisfy the “significant” part or not, I will leave it to you. I am of the opinion of keeping the article.

Also your comment about the BBC source is unfair, as Barbara Birungi was talking about HiveColab, quoting “"It's not about strict business. It's also about coming here to share your ideas, and collaborate. Because out of sharing and collaborating come ideas," says Ms Birungi. The Hive CoLab was opened to give the technology scene in Uganda a space that they could call their own and come and collaborate, says Barbara Birungi. "Apart from just offering them a space we see how we can take an idea to the next level. Because many startups fail within the first two years of existence."” FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks sustained notability over years. For example I could not find any notable and independent coverage between Jan 1, 2015 – Jan 5, 2019 XwycP3 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XwycP3 that is not a policy. Coverage does not need to be "sustained"! by the same token, we should delete many articles because you cannot find a coverage about them between Jan 1, 2015 – Jan 5, 2019 FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's coverage is from 2013 and I wanted to see if it lacked coverage after that due to it not existing or simply not have being added to the article. Wikipedia:Notability: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". When I extend the search to today, the result is the same. XwycP3 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the sentence just above what you quoted from Wikipedia:Notability: “Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.” + The sources just above your comment are from that period. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hive Colab has sufficient coverage such as BBC, AsiaTechDaily, WeAreTechAfrica etc. Drushrush (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two have already been checked and deemed to fail WP:SIRS as stated above. The third seems to be just regurgitating descriptions of the firm with no independent analysis. Notice how the wording of some parts are very similar to Hive Collab website like 1 and 2. Not to mention a site called We Are Tech Africa will have skepticism regarding its independence given the subject is a business incubator. Its difficult to rely on it to fulfill WP:SIRS Imcdc Contact 11:06, 19 January 2025 (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 Jon Gosier. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abayima

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge with Jon Gosier: Plenty of sources, but no sustained coverage. All the coverage is in the context of their "Open SIM Kit" after they got funding from the Knight News Challenge in January 2013, but it seems like the project fizzled out pretty quickly. Most coverage is from January. The latest source I could find was from August 2013. This source is a trade publication, which should be given less weight due to WP:TRADES. Their GitHub repo was last updated in September 2013. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete : Fails WP:ORG and lacks SIGCOV.Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, Soft Deletion is not possible because there is an argument to Merge this article and it also has been PROD'd before.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Helpful Raccoon. Coverage isn't broad enough for a good standalone article. OSK generated some interest at the time, although that didn't last very long. Seems like it would fit best under Jon Gosier — although we should try not to erase credit for the other 2 members of Abayima (Ahmed Maawy & Matt Griffiths) ideally, it's not solely Gosier's work. Mlkj (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2025 (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!} 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LoyaltyLion

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

DELETE — Fails WP notability guidelines for organisations and companies WP:NCORP. The sources cited don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Most of the references are either self-published (the company's own website) or fail to offer in-depth analysis, consisting instead of brief mentions or promotional content, such as interviews and mentions in listicles. The tone of the article also leans towards promotional, especially in sections like "Platform Features" and "Partnerships and Integrations" WP:NPOV. There is a lack of information demonstrating the company's impact or actual significance beyond its promotional claims WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-comm tool platform / company (created fully-formed on a new account's 11th edit). Fails WP:NCORP. The given sources are poor (though I can't see the paywalled article about Astrid & Miyu's use of the tool with Shopify), insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and searches are not finding better to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alef (company)

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

DELETE — Failure to meet WP:GNG; insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and the ones that have been mentioned make no mention of Alef. The company seems to have no notability whatsoever at the moment. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems as though this was rejected multiple times in AfC: Draft:Alef (company) Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has completely improved every problem it had before Manikingr (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP at this time. It is a little difficult to find other sources as I don't speak Persian, and alef is a character in the Perso-Arabic script so it's not a very useful search term. However, when I reviewed it for AfC I went through the various sources added to the draft at different points, and couldn't find any in-depth independent or secondary coverage in spite of the draft creator's repeated attempts to improve the sourcing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gate.io

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on a crypto-exchange company, created in March after a previous instance was deleted by AfD in February. Although this instance is not a WP:G4 repost, the text covers much the same ground and most of the references were available for consideration in the Jan 24 AfD. Since then there is a pros-and-cons Business Insider product review, though it is marked Paid non-client promotion. I am unconvinced that the available coverage meets WP:CORPDEPTH - and the special considerations for Crypto - so it seems appropriate to open a discussion on whether or not to overturn the Feb 24 AfD decision as to attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Hong Kong, and Caribbean. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a non-notable crypto exchange thing. The first four news items uses for sourcing aren't about this exchange, only mentioning it. This is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - no RS coverage and this is blatantly an ad - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable as one of the top ten crypto exchanges, has decent media coverage, but contains a promotional tone. --Moarnighar (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2025 (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 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerzner International

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

An article on a hospitality firm, recently edited to become an article in its own right after previously being a redirect to the article on the founder (no longer a suitable redirect target). Searches find routine listings, a recent item announcing user-submitted awards, and a corporate restructuring announcement, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, South Africa, and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the overwhelming amount of weasel words and promotional content and the difficulty of fixing this meds. This is a whitewashed version of the founder's article, which notes several controversial issues. Sort of reminds me of another prominent South African businessman who gained his first few millions from Apartheid and his next billions from the Middle East. Just saying. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2025 (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. Strong arguments on both sides. The SPA author's multiple source analyses were dismissed as self-serving. And while some of our more experienced editors accepted some sources as establishing notability, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cashfree

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides the usual PR-announcements, sources are mostly churnalistic in nature, fitting the description at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article carries a promotional tone and was created by a WP:SPA. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Most of the sources are press releases and undisclosed sponsored articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article has a lot of mentions because it was raided by the government...along with a bunch of other similar services. While the subject is mentioned in the articles, they do not actually discuss Cashfree, just the raids. I don't see any coverage specifically of "Cashfree." Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of citations Regardless of the topic, it does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV.. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company clearly meets the WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. I understand that there are concerns raised regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which is why I have provided a detailed source assess table below, including proper justification for each source. In this table, I have chosen The Hindu as a primary reliable source because it has covered the company through general news, including substantial negative coverage. If the article has any promotional tone, it can be addressed and rectified accordingly. Regarding the WP:SPA accusation, I kindly request that we focus on discussing this deletion nomination based on its merits rather than making unwarranted assumptions. Such accusations demoralises.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer(s).	WP:REUTERS	This is not trivial coverage, as the reporters emphasized its significance by contacting the company, though the company did not reply to their request for comment.	✔ Yes
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent because its a policy paper jointly published by researchers who are, in turn, funded by two government-funded agencies, as mentioned in a reliable column.	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	Significant coverage at following page numbers 32, and 35; addresses the topic directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Potentially independent; the company mentioned in a book chapter which an academician writes	Published by a renowned book publisher; Springer Nature	WP:SIGCOV; Coverage found at the following page number 108; addresses the topic. However, please note that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention; it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as seen in this case. Hence, it is added to Further reading MOS:FURTHER	✔ 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}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an accusation or assumption. You have made very few significant edits outside this topic, which effectively makes you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA). I encourage you to contribute to other pages as well to avoid appearing as an SPA. More importantly, your source analysis is incorrect. Check my assessment of these sources below. Yuvaank (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Yuvaank
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from an unidentified source	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement with a grand total of just 90 words.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Primarily based on the Enforcement Directorate's statements	WP:REUTERS	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	~~Potentially passes WP:SIGCOV, I'll let this one slide although the puffery in Page 35 raises some concerns.~~ The text on Page 35 has been copied verbatim from Cashfree's blog.	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	~ Largely based on direct quotes and paraphrases from unidentified sources	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Independent material	Written by two seemingly reliable authors and published by Springer Nature	Fails WP:SIGCOV, Page 108 includes two sentences about regulatory action involving this and another company. No in-depth coverage on this company itself.	✘ 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}}.

When someone begins editing Wikipedia, they usually work on just one page. Instead of doubting them ASPERSION, it’s better to be more understanding. That said, I have reviewed your source assessment and, to some extent, I agree with you. To overcome it, I have added an another source analysis table. Silkroadster (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although... I am a deletionist, I support keeping this page because the source analysis table meets the SIRS criteria. But, if the page-creating editor is found to be evading a block or anything like that, it could be easily nominated for deletion under G5. I assume this because the page has an alternate history. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has accused the page creator of being a block evader. My nomination is based solely on the quality of the sources used, and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the source analysis table above. I was also unaware of the previously unsuccessful attempts to create a page for this company at Cashfree Payments, Cashfree, Draft:Cashfree and Draft:Cashfree Payments. Thanks for pointing this out. Yuvaank (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator's source assessment depends largely on The Hindu which has a poor reputation for fact checking[18][19]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why HINDU says its' opinion pieces should be handled according to the appropriate guidelines. I have used clear news reports, following the RSP qualification criteria for The Hindu. No source is perfect; their coverage often has some bias. Sometimes they even apologise and retract. For example, check out the List of The New York Times controversies. Despite these controversies, have we ever banned the NYT from being considered a reliable source? You have a strong editing history, and I was hoping for better arguments from you so I can learn as a new editor. Silkroadster (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links I cited all referred to news articles not opinion pieces so first part of your comment is a strawman, secondly a source that has a history of no fact checking and ripping off random unverified facts from Wikipedia prior to publishing news can not be trusted, especially when the sources you cited were only reiterating the unverified statements made by the company itself. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about fact-checking and reliability. I have once again reviewed all the Hindu sources mentioned in my analysis. Apart from the company CEO's quotes, there is significant editorial input from the journalists, which should not be overlooked. My reservation is about dismissing an RSP source entirely due to past issues. To support my perspective, I have already provided the example of The New York Times. Okay, let's agree on this... The Hindu is on the RSP list based on a general consensus. If you have concerns about this source, you can raise them at RSN. My humble request is this... please try not to impose your personal judgment here solely based on your feelings. I can sense that you may be upset, so I kindly ask you to take a moment to calm down. I want to assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSP entry is not the final say on the reliability of indian sources, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to exercise caution when using them. Indian sources should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, you should stop referring to the RSP entry, as it does not even discuss their business newspaper, which you have cited. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I agree with the view on NEWSORGINDIA.

For the second point, regarding referring the Hindu RSP entries, please check this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#The Hindu. Also, take a look at Tayi Arajakate's comment on Hindu Businessline at this link for more details.

To make things clearer, if we use the CiteHighlighter tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. Hindu BusinessLine appears to be acceptable. Silkroadster (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am adding another source analysis table;

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5865944/payment-gateway-global-market-report	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://jmflresearch.com/JMnew/JMCRM/analystreports/pdf/%5BJMFL%5D%20India%20Internet_Digital%20Payments_SectorUpdate_06Nov2019.pdf	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Coverage found at page number 50.	✔ Yes
https://www.asdreports.com/market-research-companies-651138/open-banking-global-forecast	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://www.giiresearch.com/report/ires1618785-open-banking-market-by-services-banking-capital.html?	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ 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}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI with the company? Your response didn't address that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I just gave my response. My response... here focused on the AFD's key points, but I appreciate you asking for clarification. Silkroadster (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you quote the last two sources or provide their relevant scanned pages? These reports cost thousands of dollars and are inaccessible, we can't take your word for it given that you have tried to misrepresent sources before too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I could access it, I certainly would have. Since they are mentioned in the context index and some in the introduction brief, I am accepting them. Regarding the cost of the reports, please refer to the PAYWALL guideline, which clearly states: 'Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.' Regardless, I apologise if we haven’t been able to see eye to eye on this. Secondly, I want to clarify that I haven’t misrepresented any source—it seems you are strongly asserting that a valid RSP source is invalid based solely on your personal opinion. Let’s call it a day. Silkroadster (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid waving these guidelines at experienced users, we are all aware of them. If you do not have access to sources you should not include them in your source assessment. You did misrepresent the source analysis earlier as Yuvaank's counter analysis showed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I value constructive and guidelines-based discussions and respect everyone’s experience here. But, I think it’s best for me and for this AFD... if I step back from having any conversation with you. I want to re-assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The Mint source is fine, CEO talks about the company and profits. Many items on the raid... Not the best sourcing, but more than what we normally see form Indian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the sources in this article are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it's difficult to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that multiple independent research firms have produced in-depth reports and analysis on the company (structure, product, market positioning, comparison with other companies, etc) is enough to demonstrate notability as per GNG/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undoubtedly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are mainly promotional. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. I don't see any WP:SIRS that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, in addition, the bludgeoning and incorrect assessment of sources by Silkroadster which they said they do not even have access to, does not inspire much confidence. Nxcrypto Message 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely, the sources in the first source analysis table have limitations, and claims of misrepresenting sources may be valid; I am not discounting that, especially when we see it at first glance. However, they should not overshadow the fact that in-depth sources do exist, particularly the paywalled ones mentioned in the second source analysis. These types of reports show that the page meets WP:ORGIND standards, which focus on original and independent opinions, analysis, investigations, and fact-checking from sources not connected to the subject. Besides all of this, per WP:ATD-E, disagreements over a policy or guideline with respect to WP:PAYWALL, should not lead to the deletion of the page. Charlie (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH , Promotional sources - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional. Page fails WP:NCORP and fails all criteria for an organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No disrespect intended, but the Wikipedia editors supporting deletion in the second relisting appear to rely on VAGUEWAVES. They haven't properly addressed the detailed and independent sources discussed CORPDEPTH in assessment tables, making their brief one-liner statements less convincing. I am referring back to sources and the points that clearly support CORPDEPTH
- Intra-governmental report - page numbers 32 and 35
- A report on Digital Pyaments sector by JM Financial. - page number 50
- Hindu Business Line - It can't be called ROUTINE, it's an opinion piece by a staff writer at THEHINDU.
- In-depth reports produced by multiple independent research firms as listed in the source assessment table.

Silkroadster (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their rationale is significantly more convincing than the sources you have presented here.

[20] Upon closer examination, I was right in my concerns about the puffery in this source. The so-called intra-governmental report has lifted text verbatim from Cashfree's blog. This source should be discredited altogether.
[21] This report has a one-page profile on at least 23 companies in the payments processing industry.
[22] The issue is not the reliability of the source. The independence of the content is the concern here (see WP:ORGIND). This article merely repeats the CEO's statements without any original reporting on the part of the staff writer. This source also fails CORPDEPTH by a fair margin.

Yuvaank (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuvaank Allow me to provide some clear perspective on your rationale;

In that intra-governmental report, It was not the report that lifted the text but rather Cashfree, which copied the text verbatim for their blog. In that report, the authors cited a reference for the text Misra, 2023 with a clear statement: Now, this is a simple explanation of how third-party providers (TPP) can access bank servers. This reference can be found in the page number 32 itself and also in the bibliography of the report on page number 45. While copying for their blog, Cashfree omitted the reference Misra 2023.
JM Financial's Sectoral Report on Digital Payment; A one-pager includes a lot of analysis from the analyst who wrote the report, who is independent of the subject and has provided a proper disclaimer.
In The Hindu, it's an opinion piece. The staff writer used quotes from the CEO and added her own thoughts. The article is behind a paywall which I have access to, so now I am certain you haven’t read the full text; otherwise, you would have more correct interpretation.

Silkroadster (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cashfree blog was published on 4th December 2023, while the so-called intra-governmental report was published in August 2024. And yet, you are telling us that Cashfree copied from this report. I don't know what else to say, except to point out WP:CIR. The Misra 2023 citation on Page 32 pertains to how TPPs can access bank servers in general; it has nothing to do with Cashfree or the Page 35 puffery on Cashfree's services, which has undoubtedly been copied word-for-word from Cashfree's blog. Unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no mention of Cashfree on the Misra 2023 citation itself.
75% of that one-page profile on Cashfree is about funding, recent news and financials, all of which fall under WP:ROUTINE. Discounting all of that, there is barely 98 words of "analysis" (if you can even call it that).
I do have a subscription to The Hindu Business Line and can access all articles on their site. Excellent job on assuming otherwise—that's another point for you on the misrepresentation and misassumption counter. I can provide the full text of this article for you or anyone else to review (just ping me). This article clearly fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies primarily on the CEO's statements starting from the first paragraph to the last. An article like this is not called an opinion piece either, FWIW.

Yuvaank (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Wayback Machine and confirmed that the intra-governmental report was copied from the Cashfree blog. Thank you for pointing this out to everyone! As for the other two, I don't think I can make much progress with you on them. Silkroadster (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Having reviewed various of these reports in the table, I don't think this subject still meets the WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, the nominator's rebuttal of these reports above is highly convincing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To correct my earlier poor review of the intra-governmental report, I am now sharing a better source that clearly explains WP:CORPDEPTH

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2304251.pdf	Peer reviewed Journal which is indexed with India's UGC-CARE and follows it norms	Academic research article written by academicians	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in the research, and its data is being compared with that of its peers.	✔ Yes
https://www.shanlaxjournals.in/journals/index.php/commerce/article/view/5118	Peer reviewed Journal which is indexed with Ulrich's Periodicals Directory	Academic research article written by academician	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in this descriptive research.	✔ Yes
http://economice.ulbsibiu.ro/revista.studentilor/archive/RevStudEcoSib12022.pdf	A peer reviewed conference paper presented at 29th International Economic Conference – IECS 2022 in Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania	Conference chapter/paper written by academicians.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in this conference paper at page number 16 and 17.	✔ Yes
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/p2p-payment?srsltid=AfmBOorTdBFpnlh6YiAX9Eoan_24xaYion5SEUxKs7iRJtcVWu03Lzs0	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies profiled in this report as mentioned in the brief.	✔ 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}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this comes down to WP:CORPDEPTH and the relevant source assessment tables. I believe Yuvaank's is the source assessment that best reflects our current interpretation of P&G's, and therefore land at delete. Daniel (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

This restaurant is not notable beyond is local environment. It is not a landmark; it has no historic significance. It is unheard of beyond the local area. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this is definitely not notable enough for its own article. Not even known beyond its local area, the article was probably created by someone who visited it frequently. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage and this article should be expanded (and moved to The Oasis on Lake Travis), not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources identified in the previous AfD that resulted in a withdrawn nomination. One can disagree with the application of WP:NCORP to restaurants (I tend to think it results in far too many WP:ROTM local joints being declared notable), but these sources clear NCORP as we understand it today. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this one in particular but I was under the impression most ROTM local joints wouldn't get coverage satisfying WP:AUD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you a few examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beppi's restaurant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ping (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) (2nd nomination). (I am not offering these as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I would generally disagreed with the "keep" decisions, but treating restaurant reviews as WP:SIGCOV is going to result in restaurants being held to a different standard than businesses that don't generate reviews. The bias is particularly strong for WP:MILL restaurants in markets whose local papers that review restaurants have national audiences (New York, Washington, Los Angeles, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Future participants are encouraged to review the sources listed at the 1st AFD and consider whether they should be added to the current article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that too many restaurants get kept that don't pass WP:NCORP, but I see regional and national coverage of the restaurant. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company whose literal existence is filming press releases for a certain field and outside the investment world, has little to no notability by design. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (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 HDFC Bank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDFC securities

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HDFC Bank. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not independently notable of its holding company. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: An article setting out the proposition of a former retail e-business, which in its time attracted a stushie of predictions of a great future - which didn't happen, showing once more the perils of a crystal ball. It may be arguable that these several predictive items provide the multiple sources to demonstrate notability - and then that notability persists. Against that, though, pitching on Dragon's Den, raising funds, doing deals to present your app on a vendor's platform, etc., are not unusual start-up actions and don't confer notability in themselves. To demonstrate notability we need evaluation rather than predictions, to be able to concisely answer "Why was this firm notable?" and here I think it is a struggle. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 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 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Specifically:

Nothing on JSTOR
Two press-releases and two passing mentions on EBSCO
No verifiable mention on Scholar
One verifiable passing mention on GBooks.

The only content in the page actually supported by any of the three sources cited is that at least one show was held in Baltimore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2025 (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 00:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaissar Broadcasting Network

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability, and no apparent need for a standalone article on this network. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The network clearly failed WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article's content was derived from government documents obtained through FOI requests from the Philippine government, which could constitute a violation of WP:NOR. Additionally, the article lacks secondary sources. Although Kaissar was previously a member of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), it no longer holds that status. However, KBP membership alone does not establish notability. ^{I endorsed the article's PROD for the relatively same reason} AstrooKai (Talk) 07:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage Let'srun (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Sources in the page are reliable, with some in-depth enough IMV. 1 & 3 are about the company and its franchise. 2 is the company's profile. The former link is dead. So I replaced it with an archived one. The fact that it's no longer a KBP member is not my concern. 4 & 5 are proof that the list of stations are owned by the company. SBKSPP (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #1 is just the law that allowed Kaissar to be established, it doesn't demonstrate notability. Reference #2 shows the company's profile from KBP. It just demonstrates Wikipedia:Verifiability, not notability. Reference #3 just shows passing mention of Kaissar, it mainly talks about Villar's then-plan nationwide broadcasting network. Here's the part where Kaissar is only mentioned:

The same committee has, incidentally, not only just voted to renew the franchise of a little-known provincial radio TV network, Kaissar Broadcasting Network, but even expanded its coverage throughout the entire country as well.
— Victor C. Agustin, "ABS-CBn vacancy: Villar plans nationwide broadcasting network"

And I want to emphasize the fact that the news article mentioned that Kaissar was a "little-known provincial radio TV network", which just suggests that the network is relatively not notable. This news article was published in 2021, but no news coverage about the network followed since then. A search query in Google News would just return articles about Kaiser Broadcasting (an American company), and a refined Gsearch query will just return unreliable sources like blogs and network listings from radio blogs.

References #4 and #5 were taken from the Philippine government through an FOI request, which I think is a case of WP:OR and are WP:PRIMARY sources. You wouldn't ask for the document from the government itself it was already available from secondary sources, which is what needed to establish notability.

Overall, these references just proves verifiability of the content in the article, but they do not demonstrate the subject's notability at all. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the article meets WP:GNG based on my reasons stated. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete; none of the references demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, failing WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ with hope that the sources found here get incorporated into the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kdan Mobile

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

No properly reliable sources, seemingly written by someone affiliated. Found a profile on CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwan), but that is not enough for company notability. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two WP:TECHCRUNCH sources (which do not count for notability) and one primary one. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) ~~Keep~~ Weak keep per Cunard's source analysis below. Madeleine (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Madeleine961 (talk · contribs). I found some additional sources below. Would you review? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I believe the sources you found demonstrates notability and significant coverage. I will change my !vote. Good work and cheers. Madeleine (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yan, Lou-you 顏漏有 (2022). 新創成長的關鍵：解開台灣新創企業從0到10億元的祕密 [The Key to Startup Growth: Unveiling the Secrets Behind Taiwanese Startups' Journey from $0 to $1 Billion] (in Chinese). Taipei: Business Weekly Publications 商周出版. ISBN 978-626-318-392-6. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "創業之初,正好抓住App發展初期,競爭者不多,當時蘋果應用程式商店 ( App Store)上的App總數還不到一千個,但凱鈿可以開發出上百個不同的 App,營收穩定成長,但沒多久,他們的發展、成長開始出現瓶頸。除了越來越多新進開發者及大公司投入App開發,加上免費App的選擇變多,競爭加劇, 若要吸引使用者,勢必要加大行銷投資。另一個本質上的問題在於,使用者是採取一次性付費買服務,但公司仍要持續提供維運,長久下去,不利於公司成長。"
  From Google Translate: "At the beginning of the business, Kdan caught the early stage of App development and there were not many competitors. At that time, the total number of Apps on the Apple App Store was less than a thousand, but Kdan could develop hundreds of different Apps, and the business Revenues grew steadily, but before long, bottlenecks began to appear in their development and growth. In addition to more and more new developers and large companies investing in App development, as well as the increasing number of free App choices and intensifying competition, it is necessary to increase marketing investment if you want to attract users. Another fundamental problem is that users pay a one-time fee for services, but the company still has to continue to provide maintenance and operation. In the long run, it is not conducive to the company's growth."
  The book notes: "然而,過去的模式主要靠著多樣化產品在支撐,精簡後,營收規模自然大受影響,公司營運陷入極大困境,幾位創辦人不得不向員工承認錯誤,抵押、賣地、信用卡借款,這些創業故事中常見的情節,也在凱鈿發生。"
  From Google Translate: "However, the past model was mainly supported by diversified products. After streamlining, the revenue scale was naturally greatly affected, and the company's operations were in great difficulties. The founders had to admit their mistakes to the employees, resorting to pledging assets, selling land, and borrowing on credit cards—common scenarios in startup stories, which also occurred at Kdan."
2. "新創的國際化策略及管理精準掌握海外企業需求,他擁800萬會員走向B2B" [The Internationalization Strategy of Startups and Management: Precisely Understanding Overseas Business Needs, With 8 Million Members Moving Towards B2B]. BusinessNext 數位時代 (in Chinese). December 2020. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "2015 年,除了商業模式「轉彎」,凱鈿也開始收斂 App的開發數量,蘇柏州當時梳理出3個主要產品線,包括 Document 365、Creativity 365 及Kdan Cloud。直到 2019 年,團隊才又端出另一條產品線:點點簽 DottedSign。自高峰時期1年52款App,到深耕3~ 4款系列產品,他們開始專注於產品的整合,以提供更好服務來維持用戶。2019 年,凱鈿訂閱戶的續訂率達8成、截至目前也累積了 800 萬註冊會員,其中有約3萬筆企業客戶名單,成為他們推廣SaaS服務的起點。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2015, in addition to the "turn" in its business model, Kdan also began to curb the number of app development. Subazhou sorted out three main product lines at that time, including Document 365, Creativity 365 and Kdan Cloud. It wasn’t until 2019 that the team launched another product line: DottedSign. From the peak of 52 apps per year to 3 to 4 product series, they began to focus on product integration to provide better services to maintain users. In 2019, the renewal rate of Kdan's subscribers reached 80%, and it has accumulated 8 million registered members so far, including about 30,000 corporate customer lists, which has become the starting point for them to promote SaaS services."
3. Li, I-Ju 李宜儒 (2023-12-03). "台南億級APP一哥1／累計超過2億次的下載量　從閱讀器打造生態系" [Tainan's Billion-Level App Leader: Over 200 Million Downloads, Building an Ecosystem from a Reader]. Want Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "CTWANT記者調查，Kdan，其實是2009年在台南永康起家的本土APP軟體公司｢凱鈿」（Kdan），以APP搶快搶多求生，但在免費APP海量出現後險遭滅頂，轉而聚焦PDF工具用程式，並推出訂閱制服務，定期根據用戶反饋進行更新，獲得用戶好評，在2016年起獲得天使投資新台幣4000萬元，2018年完成A輪募資500萬美元（約新台幣1.5億元），由美商中經合集團、達盈管理顧問及日本Accord Ventures等共同投資。"
  From Google Translate: "According to CTWANT reporter's investigation, Kdan is actually a local APP software company "Kdan" (Kdan) founded in Yongkang, Tainan in 2009. It used APPs to grab the quickest and the most in order to survive. However, it was nearly wiped out after the massive emergence of free APPs, and it instead focused on PDFs. Tool program, and launched a subscription-based service, which is regularly updated based on user feedback, and has won praise from users. Since 2016, it has received angel investment of NT$40 million. In 2018, it completed the A-round fundraising of US$5 million (approximately NT$150 million). Yuan), jointly invested by the US-China Economic Cooperation Group, Daying Management Consultants and Japan's Accord Ventures."
4. Lin, Joyce (2020-10-05). "The Top Taiwanese App Company You Never Heard Of". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-14. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "Lman Chu (朱宜振), the founder and CEO of blockchain startup BiiLabs, said Kdan’s choice at its inception to develop “tool apps” was smart because those apps resonate across borders, helping penetrate overseas markets and build overseas teams. Not coincidentally, Kdan has focused mainly on users in Western countries. At present, the United States is Kdan’s biggest market, accounting for 40 percent of its revenues, with another 25 percent coming from Europe, 20 percent from China, 5 percent from Japan, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Kdan’s apps have gained strong followings in the West because users see them as native English-language products."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kdan Mobile (traditional Chinese: 凱鈿; simplified Chinese: 凯钿) 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) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching:

1. Mentions Asia America Multitechnology Association, does not appear particular independent?

2. A trade source, I found this about page.

3. Covers Kdan Office, Generative AI and Hancom, a bit about Kdan and an interview with chair 蘇柏州.

4. (I will note that I had already linked CommonWealth mag in my nomination).

So I don't think the sources here are extraordinary.

Edit: Had accidentally swapped 1 and 2. I found a profile on chinatimes.com, a rather promotional article on businesstoday.com.tw and one comparison to Adobe by Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the first source to be independent. It is unclear to me where Asia America Multitechnology Association is mentioned and why this would mean the source is not independent. BusinessNext is a business magazine focused on the technology and Internet sectors, which has a much broader scope than a trade magazine dedicated to a particular field. I consider it to be sufficiently independent to establish notability. The third and fourth sources include enough independent reporting and analysis about Kdan Mobile to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The description on GBooks says: "AAMA台北搖籃計畫十週年的智慧傳承

顏漏有校長首本著作". I'm unsure if I understand correctly but AAMA refers to aforementioned association.

2. The magazine appears specifically about startups and management, so I'm unsure how to evaluate but I agree it contributes.

3. It also needs to be WP:SIGCOV of the company specifically. The Chinatimes profile (by the same publisher) is certainly but I don't know how business profiles are evaluated.

@Madeleine961 Could you look into this again?

Edit: I am asking because the founder is listed on AAMA Taipei. About Cradle Project IgelRM (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I've stricken the first source as based on your explanation as it may not be independent of the subject. Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like further review of these new sources. Remember, they do not have to be "extraordinary", just sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources such as

Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: Techcrunch is situational and funding news doesn't give company notability. AWN is about the animation software and the last two, unsure if reliable, about the PDF software, specifically. IgelRM (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be supplemented with references found as above, but in general it demonstrates the company's importance through credible sources and contributions --Kej Keir (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) _{Editor blocked for advertising/promotion Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - At least for now. IgelRM raised some valid concerns and asked if this could be looked at again, but there has been no further work. In the meantime a load more sources were added. The relist comment requests a source review. Here is mine.
This is a company therefore WP:NCORP requires multiple deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information on the company per WP:ORGDEPTH. Per WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is, references cannot rely only on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even where such information has been reworded. If it isn't clearly independent content then it fails ORGIND. My analysis of all the sources provided in this AfD follows:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
New Creation and Growth - Unravel the secret of Taiwan's startups from 0 to 1 billion yuan [23]		Published by Business Week Publishing apparently. That would make it generally reliable for business news.	This appears to be a very short mention in a book attempting to survey Taiwan's startup landscape. There is some information about their products, but it seems to be quite limited. When discussing ORGGDEPTH, NCORP discusses coverage that meets the guideline. It says: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. That is not what we have here. It may be there is more in this book, but I don't read the language and don't have the book. But I expect this is all there is
Business Next Issue 319 [24]	Because of the source it is not certain this meets WP:ORGIND	Apparently a book but actually a magazine. A trade source.	As for the above, WP:ORGDEPTH is not met with the level of coverage here which is primarily about the apps and not about the business.	News reporting aspects are primary, but the question being asked of this source would make company information secondary. There is just not much there.
https://www.ctwant.com/article/301042/	I cannot tell if this is independent or not as I do not speak the language and investigating only with Google Translate. I would give it a pass if it were a clear pass elsewhere, but it is not.	Appears to be a reputable and bylined publication in an edited magazine (probably web only).	Once again, mostly about products and the little about the company does not meet ORGDEPTH.	It appears to be relying on some other reporting and is not itself news reporting.
https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=2809	Bylined Joyce Lin, who has authored multiple articles. Web only article, but no indication this is not independent	As far as I can see this is a web only article from a reputable outlet with an editorial process. No obvious reliability concerns. I note that this profile was mentioned in the nomination.	Meets WP:ORGDEPTH
TechCrunch [25] [26] [27] - Multiple articles from the same source count as one under WP:SIRS	– Partial. Startup funding reporting is independent, but the third article, in particular, is based on information coming from Kenny Su, and does not meet [{WP:ORGIND]].	I believe they are considered reliable. Trade source.	– There is little information about the company that is independent. What is independent is not significant per ORGDEPTH.	Three news reports about the startup. These are news reports - primary sources.
TechinAsia [28]	– Partial. The article is occasioned by a bit of news (and that information is primary), but what Kenny Su says about the company is not independent.	I believe it is reliable, although I haven't fully investigated.	Founded in 2009, Kdan Mobile provides digital productivity and content creation platforms. This is followed by a quote from Kenny Su and a product plug, but that is not independent. This, therefore, does not provide SIGCOV at CORPDEPTH.	– This source is occasioned news report for series B funding. The news report element is primary, but analysis would be secondary. Nevertheless, what we have does not meet ORGIND, which is a general problem for series B funding articles. These are startups promoting themselves.
AWN [29]	"Source: Kdan Mobile". Although it is bylined, this appears to be based ona. press release, and the download link has a cimmission based tracker link.	– It is reliable for reviews about animation software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about "Free Animation Desk App Available for Download". There is no information at all about the company, let alone any ORGDEPTH coverage.	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Techworm [30]	Download link has a tracker to generate commission	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Windows Report [31]	"We may get a commission if you buy through our links"	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company

So we have one good source (already mentioned in the nomination), but we need multiple sources. The first of Cunard's might be worth revisiting, or there may be more elsewhere, but at this point we are not past WP:NCORP. I would like to revise my opinion, but I do not see the sources yet. Hopefully more can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BusinessNext and Want Weekly articles discuss the company's history and several of its products. If the sources just focused on a specific product, that would not be significant coverage of the company. But when as is the case here, the sources provide an overview of the company's products while profiling the company, the sources provide significant coverage of the company. Here are additional sources I found:
1. Chu, Yung-kuang 朱永光 (2016-11-01). "〈薪火新苗〉本土App商冒出頭打造亞洲Adobe" [〈New Sparks and New Shoots〉 Local Taiwanese App Developer Emerges, Aims to Build "Asian Adobe"]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  United Daily News's Yung-kuang Chu writes the column "New Sparks and New Shoots" (Chinese: 薪火新苗), which is published every other Tuesday. I found a copy of this column in the United Daily News archives. There is a copy of the column on a blog which says it has been "reproduced with the permission of the author". The article notes: "曾獲選美國Apple App Store年度最佳娛樂與工具類應用廠商，所開發的產品多次以最值得購買、蘋果員工最愛、熱門精選、主題推薦登上App Store首頁，預計今年底將突破全球1億下載量，如此亮眼的成績，是來自台南的台灣本土開發商凱釹行動科技（Kdan Mobile Software）。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Software, a Taiwan-based developer from Tainan, has been recognised as one of the best entertainment and tools developers on the U.S. Apple App Store. Its products have repeatedly been featured on the App Store's homepage, including as "Most Worth Buying," "Apple Staff Favorites," "Popular Picks," and "Recommended Themes." The company is expected to surpass 100 million downloads worldwide by the end of this year. This impressive achievement is the result of the efforts of Kdan Mobile, a local Taiwanese company founded in 2009."
  The article notes: "成立於2009年，創辦人蘇柏州早年任職於工研院，在App Store推出後不久，看准其發展潛力及商業模式，即著手投入研發此一新程式語言。有別於其他App開發商，凱釷長期深耕行動閱讀、多媒體創作、繪圖與影像編輯等領域，以「亞洲Adobe」的定位進軍國際市場，鎖定喜歡塗鴉及從事創作的族群，打造完善的數位內容創作工具。"
  From Google Translate: "Founded by Su Bo-Chou, who previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Kdan Mobile started developing mobile applications shortly after the App Store's launch, seeing the potential and business opportunities in this new development platform. Unlike other app developers, Kdan Mobile has focused on areas such as mobile reading, multimedia creation, drawing, and image editing. It has positioned itself as "Asia's Adobe" and aims to serve the international market, targeting users who enjoy doodling and creative work, offering a complete suite of digital content creation tools."
  The article notes: "相較於以PC為主的Adobe，凱釷更早打入行動裝置市場。旗下主力產品NoteLedge、PDF Markup、Animation Desk、Write-On Video、Pocket Scanner，簡易、直覺式的操作界面是最大特色，大幅降低使用者的學習門檻，即使沒有受過專業設計訓練，也能輕鬆上手、享受創作所帶來的樂趣。"
  From Google Translate: "Compared to Adobe, which is mainly focused on PC-based software, Kdan Mobile entered the mobile device market much earlier. Its flagship products, such as NoteLedge, PDF Markup, Animation Desk, Write-On Video, and Pocket Scanner, feature simple and intuitive interfaces, making them accessible even to users without professional design training. This approach lowers the learning curve significantly, enabling anyone to easily start creating and enjoy the process of content creation."
2. Peng, Tzu-hao 彭子豪 (2021-11-17). "凱鈿業務專一入選新創明日之星" [Kdan Mobile's Focused Business Selected as the "Next Big Star" of Taiwan's Startup Scene]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C8.
  The article notes: "為讓台灣新創企業能立足國際及展現能見度，國發會推動NEXT BIG新創明日之星計畫，首波9家新創在總統蔡英文的站台下公布，其中軟體服務商凱鈿行動科技備受矚目，其因該公司是南部少數別具規模的軟體開發商，2009年成立至今軟體下載更累積超過2億次。"
  From Google Translate: "To help Taiwanese startups gain a foothold internationally and showcase their visibility, the National Development Council (NDC) launched the "Next Big Star" startup program. The first batch of nine startups was announced under the patronage of President Tsai Ing-wen, with Kdan Mobile Technology, a software service provider, receiving significant attention. The company, one of the few sizable software developers in southern Taiwan, has accumulated over 200 million software downloads since its founding in 2009."
  The article notes: "隨著Adobe進入行動服務、蘋果iOS開放對於PDF檔的支援，下載量下滑成為當時凱鈿行動科技的一大挑戰，為此在2012年公司獲資策會旗下資鼎創投基金，加上公司現金水位還不差，進而加強產品深度外，積極參加國內外各大、小軟體賽事，無形中提高公司能見度，並於2013至14年間推出跨平台文件管理服務。"
  From Google Translate: "However, as Adobe entered the mobile service market and Apple's iOS began supporting PDF files, Kdan Mobile faced the challenge of a declining download rate. To address this, the company secured investment from the Institute for Information Industry's (III) Vanguard Venture Capital Fund in 2012. With strong cash flow, the company deepened its product offerings and actively participated in both domestic and international software competitions, raising its visibility. In 2013 and 2014, the company launched a cross-platform document management service."
3. Chen, Hui-chen 陳惠珍 (2014-03-20). "微型創業－創業心法創業就是做自己擅長且喜歡做的事。凱鈿App開發行動玩家按讚蘇柏州成功挺進歐美，成立５年來全球下載突破2,000萬次，下一步強攻陸、日市場" [Micro-Entrepreneurship – The Mindset of Entrepreneurship: It's about doing what you’re good at and passionate about. Kdan App Development – Mobile Players Show Their Support. Su Bozhou Successfully Entered Europe and the U.S., With Over 20 Million Global Downloads in 5 Years; Next Step: Aggressively Targeting the Chinese and Japanese Markets]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "手機應用程式（App）市場競爭激烈，由蘇柏州所創辦的凱鈿行動科技設計公司，5年多來，已推出30多款跨平台的手機應用程式，至今已創下全球2,000餘萬次下載佳績，還曾獲得「最值得購買」、「蘋果員工最愛」等評語，受到全球不少手機使用者的推薦。工研院出身的創辦人蘇柏州，因看到Apple推智慧手機及App Store的成立，因而發現App開發的契機，進而觀察到切入世界的接口。"
  From Google Translate: "Competition in the mobile application (App) market is fierce. Kdan Mobile Technology Design Company, founded by Su Baizhou, has launched more than 30 cross-platform mobile applications in more than five years, and has achieved more than 20 million downloads worldwide so far. It has also received reviews such as "Most Worth Buying" and "Apple Employees' Favorite", and is recommended by many mobile phone users around the world."
  The article notes: "然而，現階段歐美市場，佔了凱鈿總銷售70％上下，在邁入全球突破2000萬下載量的新里程碑下，不僅已證實創立公司所設定的佈局策略是正確的，未來也有能力，將挑戰化為經營特色的實力。目前，依靠擁有完善的行銷團隊，除了歐美市場經營外，另針對中國與日本地區從事行銷規劃，並且逐步配置在地行銷人員，藉由他們可以精準地跨越語言的隔閡，把公司想傳達的產品構想，傳遞給潛在客戶群。"
  From Google Translate: "However, at this stage, the European and American markets account for about 70% of Kdan's total sales. As it reaches a new milestone of exceeding 20 million downloads globally, it has not only been confirmed that the layout strategy set by the founding company is correct, but also has the ability to do so in the future. The ability to turn challenges into business characteristics. At present, relying on a complete marketing team, in addition to operating in the European and American markets, it is also engaged in marketing planning for China and Japan, and gradually allocates local marketing personnel, through which they can accurately overcome language barriers and convey the products that the company wants to convey. idea and pass it on to the potential customer base."
4. Lai, Chao-nan 賴昭男 (2016-07-30). "職場達人－凱鈿行動科技創辦人兼執行長蘇柏州App創業從iPhone 3G開始" [Workplace Expert – Founder and CEO of Kdan Technology, Su Bozhou, App Entrepreneurship Starting with iPhone 3G]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "2009年3月，蘇柏州正式成立凱鈿行動科技。公司只有5個人，除了蘇柏州和另1個台灣伙伴，其他3個人來自大陸。蘇柏州將技術開發部分交給大陸團隊負責；在網路公司裡，這種遠距合作模式很常見，透過分工，蘇柏州也更能專注在市場研究上。"
  From Google Translate: "In March 2009, Su Bozhou officially founded Kaidan Mobile Technology. The company had only five employees: Su and one Taiwanese partner, while the other three were from mainland China. Su delegated the technical development to the mainland team. Remote collaboration like this is common in internet companies, and it allowed Su to focus more on market research through division of labor."
5. Wu, Chun-i 吳俊毅 (2022-09-21). "將上百種 App 整合成 3 大訂閱服務，凱鈿在 B2B 市場看到什麼機會？" [Integrating Hundreds of Apps into 3 Major Subscription Services: What Opportunities Does Kdan See in the B2B Market?]. 經理人 [Manager Today] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "凱鈿行動科技成立於 2009 年，打造上百個 App，其中「PDF Reader」更成為台灣「億」級商用工具軟體；在 2015 年轉型「軟體即服務」（SaaS）廠商，短短數年間，服務和產品累積下載超過 2 億次，全球會員突破 1000 萬，今年更與微軟、LINE 合作，力拚成為台灣下一個新創獨角獸。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Technology was founded in 2009 and has created hundreds of apps, among which "PDF Reader" has become a "billion-dollar" commercial tool software in Taiwan. In 2015, it transformed into a "Software as a Service" (SaaS) manufacturer. In just a few years, Its services and products have been downloaded more than 200 million times, and its global membership has exceeded 10 million. This year, it has cooperated with Microsoft and LINE to become Taiwan's next new unicorn."
Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort but I find it strange that you didn't mention that 1st author "朱永光" is part of an investment organization (美国中经合集团董事总经理).

2. looks good, although I cannot verify it online and is industry related.

3. and 4. perhaps push this over the edge. I couldn't find these easily during my WP:BEFORE as they are offline now.

5. is filed as an interview. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote that column in his role as a South China Morning Post columnist. I don't think his being part of the investment organization prevents his column from contributing to notability. Thank you for reviewing the sources. Even when excluding that source, I think that with sources 2, 3, and 4 (combined with the sources discussed here), there are enough sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that commission in reviews per se don't make sources not independent as a popular blog like The Verge also uses that. IgelRM (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this comment in the correct place? Should it be under this comment, which mentions commissions in the source table? I don't think any of the sources I listed have commission links. Cunard (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's for @Sirfurboy:. It's confusing but I think it's indented correctly with the reply tool. Edit: Did I ping @Madeleine961: correctly? IgelRM (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. My job makes it difficult to respond in a timely manner, but I have read through the debate. I still believe that the subject meets bare notability per Cunard's most recent source findings, so I suppose I will change my !vote to a Weak keep, though if the article gets deleted I am not opposed to a Draftify. Madeleine (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors have provided counterposed assessments of sources and their depth of coverage. Comments from additional editors would help assess consensus regarding the sources in discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Sirfurboy's source analysis and IgelRM's analysis of the subsequent sources, excluding (3 and 4) added by Cunard, but these are not sufficient. Source 3 contains excerpts from the founder and source 4 reads like a press release. Many of the sources include interviews or excerpts directly from Kdan, which fails the WP:SIRS check. Adding to the fact that we have three driveby voters raises concerns about the reliability of the sources. It is well known that UPE articles often include fabricated sources that mimic genuine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSites

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced only to press releases and "fastest growing companies" type lists. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has lots of media coverage — 102.91.93.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The SmartSites article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as it is a recognized and award-winning digital marketing agency with significant industry impact. The company has received multiple accolades, including rankings on the Inc. 5000 list for several consecutive years and recognition by Clutch.co as a leading agency in web design and digital marketing. These achievements have been covered by independent, reliable sources, demonstrating the company's influence and relevance in the digital marketing space.

Additionally, SmartSites has been featured in reputable publications such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Inc. magazines, which provide independent coverage beyond trivial mentions. This establishes the company’s notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG). The article provides verifiable, well-sourced information, contributing to the encyclopedia's goal of documenting notable organizations.

Deletion would remove a valuable resource for users seeking information on a player in the digital marketing industry. Instead, any concerns about content quality or neutrality can be addressed through constructive edits.

Hussainxyz (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hussainxyz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily as unambiguous WP:ADMASQ. This subject fails WP:NCORP. Virtually every source is a press release, and the few that aren't are WP:ORGTRIV. Being on the Inc. 5000 does not qualify a company as notable. Furthermore, I searched and there is no evidence for the page creator's assertion (or should I say ChatGPT's hallucination? GPTZero gives a 100% probability that the creator's !vote is WP:AIGENERATED) that there is independent coverage in Forbes or Entrepreneur. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a fundamental disagreement over the quality of the sources and whether they are SIGCOV or just press releases so a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They are technically on Forbes Advisor, Inc., and Entrepreneur, but Forbes Advisor is not reliable per WP:RSP, and the Inc. and Entrepreneur do not contain significant coverage. Influencer Marketing Hub and DesignRush don't seem like reliable sources. Everything else is press releases and/or routine coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a directory page, not actual coverage in Entrepreneur magazine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The article on SmartSites satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations, supported by significant independent coverage in reputable sources like Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur. These sources document the company's achievements, including its recognition on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private companies in America.

The content is backed by reliable references and is written in a neutral tone, providing encyclopedic value rather than promotional content. It offers important information about the company's role in the digital marketing industry, which is relevant to readers seeking insights into notable businesses in this field.

I suggest keeping the article and addressing any specific concerns regarding formatting or sourcing to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. Hussainxyz (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should only make a single "Keep/delete" comment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please respond to the inquiry on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly for PR items, as are most of what we have now for sourcing. Forbes Advisor sites aren't RS, a company profile isn't helpful... We have nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that User:102.91.105.184 (wrongly listed below as User:92.21.93.46) struck this vote with no apparent justification, which I reverted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article shouldn’t be considered for deletion, It only needs additional content. — 92.21.93.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The Inc profile is insignificant coverage. The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#RFC Forbes Advisor is that the Forbes Advisor article is unreliable. The other sources in the article are press releases. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the company in my searches for sources. SmartSites does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator, Hussainxyz (talk · contribs), was blocked for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hussainxyz. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The weight of the argument is in favor of closing as keep, but due to a lack of participation after Cunard's contributions to the discussion, I am closing this as no consensus (defaulting to keep). Malinaccier (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunbow

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

Appears to be wholly promotional Amigao (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Hong Kong. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine business listings found. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company's Chinese name is Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) and the founder is Charles Chan (traditional Chinese: 陳鑑光; simplified Chinese: 陈鉴光). Cunard (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chong, Cheng-man 莊程敏; Yan, Kiu-ling 殷考玲 (2021-09-09). "老品牌拓疆土升級須創新" [Old Brands Expand Territories, Upgrading Requires Innovation]. Lion Rock Daily [zh] (in Chinese). p. P6. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "有「熨斗大王」之稱的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士，憑藉2001年推出自家研發塑料製成的電子控溫熨斗，短短一年售出逾70萬件，從此奠定集團在歐洲市場的地位，但他並未因此滿足。去年在港設立研究開發部門，為進軍大灣區9市市場作準備，目標以開拓9+2城市的家庭為主。東保集團成立逾25年，產品走中高端路線，研究開發（R&D）部門一直在內地，但由去年起在香港同樣設立R&D部門並設逾20位開發人員"
  From Google Translate: "Dr. Chen Jianguang, the founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, known as the "Iron King", launched his own electronic temperature-controlled irons made of plastic in 2001. More than 700,000 units were sold in just one year, establishing the group's position in the European market. status, but he was not satisfied with it. Last year, a research and development department was established in Hong Kong to prepare for entering the 9 cities in the Greater Bay Area. The goal is to develop families in the 9+2 cities. Tunbow Group has been established for more than 25 years, and its products are mid-to-high-end. The research and development (R&D) department has always been in the mainland. But since last year, it has also set up an R&D department in Hong Kong with more than 20 developers."
2. "鼓勵溝通合作助企業擺脫單打獨鬥香港模具及產品科技協會見證「百業之母」改朝換代" [Encouraging Communication and Cooperation to Help Businesses Break Free from Solo Struggles: Hong Kong Mould and Product Technology Association Witnesses the Transformation of the 'Mother of All Industries']. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2016-01-28. p. P40.
  The article notes: "憑首創開放蒸發器熨斗，成功晉身世界五大熨斗代工生產商，贏得“熨斗大王”稱譽的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士（Dr. Charles Chan，見圖），全靠他面對挑戰時視危為機的信念。陳鑑光博士與他的太太在90年代初期決定闖一闖，合組貿易公司，成立東保。在創業初期，東保只是以設計及貿易性質運作。"
  From Google Translate: "With the first open evaporator iron, Dr. Charles Chan (pictured), founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, successfully joined the world's top five iron OEM manufacturers and won the title of "Iron King", all because of his ability to face challenges The belief that every crisis is an opportunity. Dr. Chen Kam-kwong and his wife decided to venture into the business in the early 1990s, forming a trading company and establishing Tunbow. In the early days of business, Tunbow only operated in the nature of design and trading."
3. Sit, Wai-kit 薛偉傑 (2010-08-06). "小家電商 8招抗逆境" [8 Strategies for Small Home Appliance Businesses to Overcome Adversity]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. B11.
  The article notes: "東保集團成立於1995 年，主力生產小型家電，特別是電熨斗。其客戶包括多個知名品牌如伊萊克斯、飛利浦、白朗、Kenwood、勝家等。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group was established in 1995 and focuses on the production of small household appliances, especially electric irons. Its customers include many well-known brands such as Electrolux, Philips, Blanc, Kenwood, Singer, etc."
  The article notes: "另外，東保集團與一般廠商不同的，是它很強調一條龍式垂直生產。該公司自設電路板生產部、五金部、壓鑄部、塑膠部、噴油部等。總之，就是自行生產其小家電所需的電路板、金屬機殼、塑膠機殼，以及自行為機殼噴油。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, Tunbow Group is different from ordinary manufacturers in that it emphasises one-stop vertical production. The company has its own circuit board production department, hardware department, die-casting department, plastic department, fuel injection department, etc. In short, it means producing the circuit boards, metal casings, and plastic casings needed for its small household appliances by itself, and spraying oil on the casings by itself."
4. Leung Man-fung 梁文峰 (2010-07-12). "東保拓內銷或5年內上市" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public within 5 Years]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). p. B1.
  The article notes: "家電設計、生產商東保集團為開拓內銷市場，正於惠州投資5億元擴展生產基地，預計總產能將提升5 倍。現時深圳兩廠房共有約20條生產線，年產800萬台小家電。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group, a home appliance designer and manufacturer, is investing 500 million yuan to expand its production base in Huizhou in order to develop the domestic market. It is expected that the total production capacity will increase five times. Currently, the two factories in Shenzhen have a total of about 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of small household appliances."
5. "圖：深圳港資企業「綠色風」盛" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public Within 5 Years] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2010-07-07.
  The article notes: "7月7日，一群香港媒體記者專程來到深圳寶安，釆訪推行「綠色生產」、「綠色小家電」揚名業界的香港東保集團深圳生產基地。該集團為減少生產污染投資3,000多萬港圓對硬體和軟體進行改善工程，企業環保創新產品不斷出現。目前集團20條生產線，年產800萬台各式家用電器，暢銷美國、加拿大及歐盟、東南亞26個國家。"
  From Google Translate: "On 7 July a group of Hong Kong media reporters made a special trip to Bao'an, Shenzhen to visit the Shenzhen production base of Hong Kong Tunbow Group, which is famous in the industry for promoting "green production" and "green small home appliances". The group has invested more than HKD 30 million in hardware and software improvement projects to reduce production pollution, and innovative environmentally friendly products have continued to emerge. At present, the group has 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of various household appliances, which are sold well in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and 26 countries in Southeast Asia."
6. "東保集團董事總經理鄧美華東保集團積極開拓高技術高加值特色化的家電產品" [Tunbow Group Managing Director, Ms. Tan Meihua: Tunbow Group Actively Expanding High-Tech, High-Value, and Specialised Home Appliance Products]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). 2018-12-19. p. AA10.
  The article notes: "身為本港知名企業，東保集團積極開拓高技術、高增值、特色化的家電產品，推出電子熨斗、強力蒸氣專業熨斗、電子蒸籠、濃湯機及全自動咖啡機。公司成立於1994年，與香港一同經歷風雨，亦一同成長。作為營商者為公司賺取利潤固然重要，但東保集團更有一份香港精神，與客戶共渡時艱，這更為可貴。"
  From Google Translate: "As a well-known enterprise in Hong Kong, Tunbow Group actively develops high-tech, high value-added and specialised home appliance products, launching electronic irons, powerful steam professional irons, electronic steamers, soup makers and fully automatic coffee machines. The company was established in 1994 and has experienced ups and downs together with Hong Kong and has grown together. As a businessman, it is important to make profits for the company, but Tunbow Group has more of a Hong Kong spirit and shares difficulties with its customers, which is even more valuable."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional review of new sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Took a look at Cunard's sources and I am convinced by the coverage provided in sources 2, 3, 5, and 6, which are sufficient to pass NCORP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:11, 12 January 2025 (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. I am unimpressed by the Keep !votes from the inexperienced (canvassed?) participants. Those more familiar with our guidelines (and unaffiliated with its subject) unanimously argued for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has 13 news articles that meet the notability criteria of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The fact that many of them are in Czech or Slovak doesn't meet they don't meet the criteria, and a search of developer forums shows the software is widely used among English speakers in any case. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article contains a promotional section but has reliable sources. The page would benefit from cleanup to improve its structure and neutrality. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 13:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has reliable sources and passes WP:COMPANY. XwycP3 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article passes WP:SUSTAINED notability because it has 24 references going back to 2017. Sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Additionally, another editor removed the section listing the company's products, which should take care of the WP:PROMOTION concern. Schnookums123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the opening paragraph implies that the article is about a web scraping platform, in reality the article is devoted to the company. On that basis I've evaluated the sourcing according to whether it establishes notability of the company. The criteria established by the guidelines 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. None of the sourcing meets the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments referring to the above list of 13 URLs are not persuasive. As for the URLs:
1. [32] – no significant coverage
2. [33] – SIGCOV about the company, but not about the product. The website offers paid articles, with no mention of them being indicated as such.
3. [34] – no coverage on the product, very little relevant coverage on the company (most of the information is routine)
4. [35] – no SIGCOV
5. [36] – an interview; therefore the source is neither secondary nor independent
6. [37] – has SIGCOV, but seems to be a paid article
7. [38] – mostly routine coverage
8. [39] – an interview with an employee
9. [40] – has some good coverage about the product
10. [41] – an interview with one of the founders
11. [42] – no SIGCOV
12. [43] – paywalled
13. [44] – no SIGCOV

Overall, these sources provide no sustained significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :I think it's important to keep the article live as it is, since it’s authentic and doesn’t include any promotional content. It’s also received some good coverage, which adds to its credibility. Since it's not labeled as sponsored or paid, the exposure it gets feels more natural and genuine.. cashar334 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I share concerns about the listed sources, mentions are not enough. I looked into some of them and agree with the findings of Janhrach, above. C 679 05:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just as HighKing stated above, I don't see an ORGCRIT pass either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 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 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found two independent sources ([45], [46]) and added them to the article, but I'm not sure about reliability and the first one seems pretty promotional. I'd be more confident if someone could find another piece of coverage that isn't connected to the ATDC or Georgia Tech. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to try another relisting before considering closing this discussion as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources that is not routine. Whizkin (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Datamatics

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and lacks news coverage from independent reliable sources. Mysecretgarden (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Google search brings up many other news articles about them. They are an Indian public company. We can't also just assume all Indians publications are bad. Here are some of the other articles I have found: 1, 2, 3, 4. Shinadamina (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinadamina only link number 3 makes partial sense but still it fails because of CORPTRIV, as it focuses on changes in share price. Please provide a SIRS table. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a good example of a SIRS table in this AfD, which you can easily create by using the following Template:Source assess table. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet notability guidelines, as it lacks sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to establish the company's significance. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (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 00:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Sun Life Asset Management

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 29 December 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 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the caveat that most Indian media nowadays is spoiled (pun intended), the coverage shows this is a unicorn company. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changed from a Keep upon second look. Created by a new editor who has splashed up articles of dubious notability. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and this page is for promotional and advertisement it seems. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - defunct streaming platform; not a unicorn; usual caveats for Indian media. This is really only of use for historical purposes. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (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!} 10:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage and depth worthy of notice about the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2025 (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 00:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyG

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 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 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biba Apparels

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless someone can provide me something to the contrary, I am only finding mentions and churnalism (or unreliable soruces). Some press looks okay such as this and this but these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources without bylines and likely paid, churnalism, or non-independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor and dead link sources. Most of the sources are promotional, advertising and routine. Company fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2025 (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 Nirma. History is in tact should someone desire a merger Star Mississippi 14:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [47] [48] [49] [50] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon a SIRS table will surely make notability much clearer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nirma: I don't think the sources I listed above provide enough significant coverage for a standalone article. Only the article about its acquisition of Emami Cement plausibly constitutes sigcov. Note that the company was renamed from Lafarge India despite what the article Nirma currently says. (see [51]) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nirma Group: The company lacks independent significance. It should be redirected to Nirma Group. B-Factor (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nirma. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nirma at which article there is already a concise summary of the formation and expansion through acquisition of this firm, which does not appear to have specific notability in itself. The history of the redirected article can provide material to expand the summary in the main article, if there is felt to be a need. AllyD (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2025 (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 due to the numbers, however leaning keep as the source assessment provided by Cunard satisfies NCORP. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage that goes back to before the millennium. There's more than a dozen articles in the Wall Steet Journal which detail deals made: [52], [53], [54]. There's New York Times coverage as well: [55], [56], [57], [58]. Plenty more sources out there. This is just from a few minutes search. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH. These are funding announcements (1+2+4+5), brief hiring news (3) and a brief mention (6+7). These would be considered routine trivial coverage. Could be just regurgitation of press releases. No considered in depth enough to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT. The requirements for WP:NCORP are a lot more stringent now and simply having a bit of coverage is not enough to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really spend more than a few minutes looking into potential sourcing? Thriley (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the type of coverage that is expected for a firm like this one. It demonstrates that billions of dollars has passed through it over the last 30 years. Thriley (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: You added a source from Fortune to the article . Are you seeing the widespread coverage I am seeing? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a firm with a large AUM is expected to be notable, it is the independent in-depth sources that determine notability per WP:NCORP. Just saying an investment firm has raised XXX amount alone is considered routine since they all need to do that since how else are they going to get money to invest? Speaking of AUM, August Capital has supposedly $1.3B to $2B AUM. Meanwhile BOND has $6B AUM and Accel-KKR has over $20B AUM and they both got deleted. Imcdc Contact 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment, especially of newly found sources, would be helpful as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed provide only routine coverage, including the one from the Wall Street Journal. Aona1212 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fund, Bret R.; Pollock, Timothy G.; Baker, Ted; Wowak, Adam J. (2008). "Who's the New Kid? The Process of Developing Centrality in Venture Capitalist Deal Networks". In Baum, Joel A. C.; Rowley, Timothy J. (eds.). Network Strategy. Advances in Strategic Management. Vol. 25. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 563–593. doi:10.1016/S0742-3322(08)25016-3. ISBN 978-0-7623-1442-3. ISSN 0742-3322. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The book notes on page 566: "We then introduce our process model of centrality achievement and summarize the history and evolution of two venture capital firms – Benchmark Capital and August Capital – to illustrate the elements and relationships in our model."
  The book notes on page 574: "August Capital (August) was founded by partners David Marquardt and John Johnston, two former partners of TVI whose early stage investment experience prior to founding August included investments in Microsoft, Adaptec, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Seagate, Intuit, Sybase, Visio, Actel, and ViewLogic. David Marquardt is a prominent and high-status member of the VC community; he was a co-founder of TVI and the lead VC for the Microsoft deal. To this day he continues to serve on Microsoft’s board."
  The book notes on pages 574–575: "In the simplest terms, August seemed to take its time, moving at a very deliberate pace. In the several months following the close of its inaugural fund, August made only one small investment for about $1 million (representing approximately 1% of its total fund). Our reading of a variety of contemporary descriptions of August’s behavior and our examination of their investment behavior suggests the self-confident manner of a ‘‘master of the universe’’ that felt little urgency or compulsion to hurry in making investments and putting the new firm on the map."
  The book notes on page 572: "As the two firms entered their second year, August continued its more conservative approach and made no additional investments in the first three months of 1996. It appeared, rather, that the August partners continued to work with ventures they knew from their TVI days but in which August had not yet made investments. Finally, in April of 1996, August invested along with six other VC firms in Be, Inc., a company that TVI originally funded in 1992."
  The book notes on page 584: "August’s first two funds (with a combined total of $300 million) were fully invested in 34 companies by 1999. Overall, August invested in 44 companies from 1995 to 2000 with an average investment of $6.8 million. Among these companies were big names such as Epinions.com, Cobalt Networks, and Be, Inc. As Fig. 5 shows, during our period of study seven of August’s investments underwent initial public offerings (IPOs). The median return for the seven firms that August took public was 585%. Their two most successful IPOs during this period were Cobalt Networks and Silicon Image. August’s investment of $10 million in Cobalt Networks was worth $336 million at the end of the day Cobalt went public – a 3,360% return. Silicon Image was similarly successful; August’s $8.3 million investment in this firm was worth $119 million after the first day of trading, generating a 1,444% return."
2. Primack, Dan (2019-01-02). "A look inside the trouble at Silicon Valley's August Capital". Axios. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes: "Silicon Valley venture firm August Capital held its annual holiday dinner on Dec. 6. The mood was festive, not only because of the season, but also because August had recently held a first close on its eighth fund after an unusually arduous process. Four days later, the firm effectively imploded. ... Background: August Capital was founded in 1995 by investors who had written some of the earliest checks for tech icons like Microsoft and Compaq. ... August was so successful for so long that it never really had to fundraise in the traditional sense. Instead, it could just send out an email to investors and hold a quick close. But that changed in 2018 with its efforts to secure $250 million for Fund VIII. Some LPs were still upset with how fees were handled on August's under-performing sixth fund, while others were curious about partnership stability given that two longtime GPs (Howard Hartenbaum and Vivek Mehra) were out and 2 newer GPs (Tripp Jones and Villi Iltchev) were in."
3. Roberts, Bill (May 2000). "The chip-friendly VCs". Electronic Business. Vol. 26, no. 5. Reed Business Information. pp. 72–82. ProQuest 194235753.
  The article notes: "August Capital may be the best kept secret in Silicon Valley. It was cofounded in August (hence the name) 1995 by Marquardt, a Silicon Valley legend and the only VC who invested in Microsoft Corp. 19 years ago. It now has three funds totaling nearly $700 million, with more than $1.5 billion in assets under management. ... Rappaport joined the firm in 1996. The other general partners are John Johnston, the other cofounder and a former partner at Technology Venture Investors (TVI), also in Menlo Park, and Andrew Anker, who was co-founder and CEO of Wired Digital Inc., San Francisco, a news and media organization that launched the first advertising Web site. Mark Wilson, administrative partner, and Won Chung, research partner, round out the senior team.August Capital thrives on early stage funding, preferably as lead investor, in companies like Genoa that seek to fundamentally change their industry. ... August Capital's only disaster was DigiCash, which was developing infrastructure for electronic payments over the Internet. ... It entered Chapter 11 in late 1998 and emerged in 1999 as eCash Technologies Inc., Seattle."
4. Primack, Dan (2014-09-26). "Exclusive: August Capital leaving "opportunity" on the table". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes about "“opportunities funds": "But Fortune has learned that one of the practice’s originators, August Capital, is going in the other direction. Back in 2000, August took advantage of an opportunity to participate in a $2 billion buyout for hard-drive maker Seagate. The only problem was that its commitment took up around one-third of its fund, which is an exceptionally high percentage. So August later decided to begin raising $250 million side vehicles to handle such deals, and has done so for each of its last three fundraises (no fees are charged on the side-funds until capital is called). But when August returns to market later this year to raise its sixth fund, there will be no sidecar."
5. Garland, Russ (March 2015). "VC Profile: August Capital Shifts to Single-Fund Model to Maintain Its Focus on Value Investing". Private Equity Analyst. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes: "Although some venture firms have turned to side funds to make large, growth-oriented investments, August Capital has gone in the opposite direction.The early-stage venture firm, which participated in the 2000 buyout of Seagate Technology LLC, had raised a special opportunity fund as a companion to each of its prior three funds. With its latest, $450 million pool, however, it returned to a single-fund approach. ... The Seagate investment was the catalyst for August's first special opportunity fund. That deal wasn't a natural for what is primarily an early-stage venture firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow August Capital to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:NCORP via the sources identified by Cunard. Another source is this 3000+ word profile:

Rao, Leena (2014-06-14). "Sand Hill Road's Consiglieres: August Capital". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-01-05.

Jfire (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Connecticut. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Esti92 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I could find were WP:ROUTINE mentions in the trades, nothing to notch WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 21:56, 29 December 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. Not a soft deletion, as consensus is clear after 2 weeks (even with low participation). Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Israel. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this reads as an advertisement and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 28 December 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. Ignoring the UPE/canvassed/sock votes, I see no consensus either way, and no reason to believe a third relisting will get us there. Please abstain from early renomination. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [59]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modernwoman2021 is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp.

From San Diego Tribune, San Diego Business Journal, Silicon Angle, Times of San Diego, Fast Company, Fast Company, Ad Week, Crunchbase News, Irish Times, PR Newswire, Forbes (Third Party), Solutions Review, UC Today, and Digital News Asia to name a few.

These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases.

But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the UC Today article as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP.

Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this TechCrunch article, which is about the company layoffs.

And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Wikipedia.

As I understand Wikipedia, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Wikipedia is the central point for all information about ClickUp.

Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here.

Since this is the English language Wikipedia, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiresearcher (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nabiresearcher is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this assumption has anything to do with the discussion, since I only provided sources I know to help?

Please keep the discussion only about ClickUp. Anything here shouldn't be taken personally :) Thank you! Nabiresearcher (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions on other editors, regardless of edit count or participation elsewhere. Thank you. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references out there, meets NCORP easily. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Insurance

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

I did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP. The sources provided are primary (afi.org) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to pass WP:NCORP. Sources are non-independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[60] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[61] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[62] is not independent
[63] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[64] is a copy of a press release
[65] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[66] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[67] copy of a press release
[68] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[69] Summary of a press release
[70] Summary of a press release
[71] Summary of a press release
[72] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (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!} 07:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete @Ratnahastin, you are right that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a big problem when it comes to checking notability in India. However, in this case, since the page is about a listed company, I have found three sources that are independent analyst reports with disclaimers. - HDFC Securities, SBI securities, and ~~SMIFS~~. But I am not sure how many such reports are needed to establish the notability of these types of companies or how relevant they are. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SMIFS analyst report I shared earlier has been struck through. On page 13, it mentions that SMIFS or its associates may have received payments for products or services not related to investment banking or brokerage from the company mentioned in the report over the past year. Because of this, I am pulling back my earlier weak keep vote. As of now, just two analyst reports alone aren’t enough to prove notability. I should have read the disclaimer carefully. Sorry for the mistake. Charlie (talk) 11:34, 31 December 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 Outlast. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Barrels

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There seems to be no significant coverage. The focus of the sources are the Outlast games, not the company itself. Suggesting redirection to Outlast as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its claim to fame (Outlast). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is clear coverage in at least two existing sources (edge and gi.biz) about the founding of the company that meet the independence of NCORP. That might be tied to talking about Outlast but that's expected for a developer that has focused on one series since founding. Masem (t) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the edge article currently on the page?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that gi.biz is SIGCOV, but that Edge article (about Assassin's Creed) only has a passing mention to the company. --Mika1h (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was wondering as the Edge article on the page is no where near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. The gi.biz is an industry publication so while it meets ORGCRIT, it is still not enough and not that strong of a reference to meet NCORP standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears their sole product, the Outlast series, would be more notable. Could this be retooled into a series article? IgelRM (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP. No significant coverage. The Edge article is questionable as a reliable source. In any case, the coverage in that article is about the story of a person, not the company. Canada Media Fund article is routine coverage pertaining to funding, and commentary about funding, as noted in NCORP, is not acceptable as sourcing for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of funding for a company is not acceptable for notability criteria per NCORP, including in g-biz. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria although perhaps a redirect to one of the games would also be applicable, if a suitable redirect (perhaps Outlast?) is agreed. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 3 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [73] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [74] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source review would be helpful as, at this point, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on my views, none of the sources qualifies for WP:INDEPTH coverage. Most are routine coverage of controversies about fake degrees, non-recognition, and other incidents, and they are not qualified for WP:NSCHOOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previously stated, notorious diploma mill. It is notable due to its notoriety as a "school" as indicated by the coverage on it, rather than as school per se like UCLA for example. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2025 (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

Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)