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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Solvent Extractions

(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. Apart from that, activities like opening new plants, entering into new business segments like icecream, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:13, 28 March 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) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My own English-language searching turned up nothing that can be used for establishing notability. I am willing to change my vote if sufficient Hindi or other language sources can be found. Moritoriko (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. - Imcdc Contact 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 4 April 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. Owen× ☎ 10:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Industries Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An alternative to deletion could be merging with CK Birla Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:09, 28 March 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) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. One Business source and two primary sources do not make notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Agree with Nom, as ATD to merge with C.K.Birla group. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not a fan of the policy that primary sources do not by themselves make notability. I think if the material is sufficiently reliable, then even a reliable source could have primary sources which help greatly if not completely aid in reaching notability thresholds. Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works, so I am compelled to !vote for the Delete camp here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company does not look encyclopedic. And the sources are not that good. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 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) 01:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

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

A suspended company from the stock exchange. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 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) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 March 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 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to the fact that it does have some coverage. However, some parts are cited to primary sources, so they may have to be removed. ^Wiinter_U 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 11 April 2025 (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⁺⁺ 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. - Imcdc Contact 03:35, 16 April 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 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 google news hit. The first source appears dead, 2nd source doesn't link to anything. 3rd source doesn't even mention this company. 4th and 5th sources are generic and don't refer to company. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this fails WP:CORP guidelines. I Will note that searching for the topic is difficult due to search collisions with Raspberry Pi software, and someone who knows more about the company may be able to perform a more successful search. Most information I can find comes from the company's website itself. Apparently they write ticketing ID software for railroads these days. News coverage that I found is generic business news noting investments/partnerships/mergers. Other sources are filings with the UK government.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I mainly found directory listings like this. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORP. In general, government findings may be OK depending on the context but I don't think that really applies in this scenario. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies (WP:CORP). The discussion indicates a significant lack of independent, reliable sources providing substantial coverage of the company. Initial searches yielded few relevant results, with much of the available information being either from the company itself, unreliable (dead links), or non-significant, such as directory listings and routine business announcements. The difficulty in finding significant coverage, even considering potential search term collisions, suggests the company does not meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Therefore, deletion is warranted due to a lack of demonstrated notability. Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 3 April 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 14:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yongchang Real Estate

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

I wasn't able to find much significant coverage in English, or anything that would demonstrate notability as a company. There may be coverage in Chinese-language sources, but I admit having trouble conducting a WP:BEFORE for Chinese sources. Mooonswimmer 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like the best search terms are "永昌地产" ('Yongchang Real Estate') or "永昌集团" ('Yongchang Group'). It doesn't look like there's a lot out there, though. Mostly this company's own websites, generic company database entries, and some promotional cruft like this. The soccer team is definitely notable – the company for which it is named, not so much. Toadspike [Talk] 22:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual holding companies and REITs like this are all too common and almost never are notable. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are additional non-English references someone can present, nothing on the current page and nothing I find in English would meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 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. Many of the arguments on the Keep side were based primarily on the weakness of the nomination, which by itself, is not a valid reason to retain an article. Among those who examined sourcing vis-à-vis NCORP, I see a rough consensus that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. This view was also shared by the lone "Neutral" !vote here. The outcome is the same whether or not I discard the (canvassed?) SPA vote by the account created for this AfD. Kudos to HighKing for the thorough source assessment work. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [8] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.

1. Notability (WP:N)

It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.^[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.^[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.^[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.^[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.^[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.^[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.^[7]

2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)

All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).

3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)

The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).

4. Deletion Criteria

It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.

In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV. Mollatim (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)— Mollatim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

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 and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:

la Repubblica (in Italian) article relies entirely on information provided by the founder, Manzoni, who the author met in Rome, and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This first Vice article fails for the same reasons. The author was "told" by Manzoni all of the details and the article has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This also from Vice is totally based on an "announcement" and PR from Manzoni, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the others above
Techcrunch article based on the company publishing an updated price list and regurgitates from that list what it is offering and what it offered previously. Unfortunately, the company doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, it instead comments on the overall marketplace, and fails to provide in-depth info on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from SCWorld is based on the same "updated price list" information as the TechCrunch article, comes with the obligatory comments from the company, it is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now. Based on the other references which first-time contributor posted above, none of which come close to meeting NCORP criteria, I'm inclined to assume these also will fail our criteria. Happy to change my stance if somebody can check out those article and confirm I'm mistaken tho. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now

Perhaps something has changed or it is my computer's configuration but both pages are showing the message "An error occurred while loading the page, please contact customer service for assistance." Is this the same message you got?

first-time contributor

Interesting. Before going further I don't think this has any bearing on the notability debate, but a first time contributor with such proper formatting is rare. Hell, I can't format like that. I was curious how the Crowdfense article had grown in size so I looked at the edit history. IP 5.195.224.90 also added intelligence online citations to Zerodium as well as Crowdfense. They did turn up this article which could count towards notability? Article interweaves original thought, even though information still comes from the founder:

The policy of avoiding selling zero-day exploits to certain countries certainly sets Crowdfense apart. But it’s an interesting choice for a company headquartered in a nondemocratic Asian country notorious for both its love of new and expensive technology alongside its longstanding and continuing human rights abuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided by the Mollatim, the knowledgeable first-time contributor, point to a "paid-up subscription" page which is why you see the error message. This link shows a cut-off version inviting a subscription. You can do the same with the second link if you like. I pointed out that Mollatim was a first-time contributor for the same reasons you've highlighted - the editor demonstrates knowledge of formatting and referencing beyond an editor with comparable (lack of) experience. I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria.

I assume you made comment in reference to the last paragraph of mine, which you erroneously (no hard feelings ^^) removed the blockquote from. It is a quotation from this article, which I remarked about. It is not my own opinion. Regards, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that there is no requirement for an article author to recuse themselves from an AfD about it. @Scaledish: feel free to amend your note to a !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my vote but I would just like to argument a bit more on it: Mollatim (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those already cited, I found further coverage in a variety of independent publications and industry sources:

DEF CON 32 presentation: The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation discusses Crowdfense’s unique position and influence within the exploit acquisition market.^[1]
Tactical Report details EDGE’s strategic partnership with Crowdfense.^[2]
Security Affairs covers Crowdfense’s $30M exploit acquisition program.^[3]
Analisi Difesa analyzes the company’s impact on the cybersecurity sector.^[4]
Red Hot Cyber explores Crowdfense’s role and market pricing for 0days.^[5]
Additional coverage in Cybersecurity-Help.cz^[6] and CyberScoop.^[7]

There are existing articles for companies in the same niche (e.g., Vupen and Zerodium), which are similarly covered in the media and referenced in industry discussions. Applying a stricter standard here than for comparable entities risks inconsistency and could create the impression of selective enforcement.

While Crowdfense may not be a household name, its role within the international vulnerability research and cyber capabilities market is significant, as recognized by independent analysts, journalists, and conference presenters. Wikipedia notability is about reliable, significant coverage, not mainstream popularity. Mollatim (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went and listened to the 47 minute DEFCON talk and it is not about Crowdfense's position or influence. As far as Stephen Sims is concerned, he just looked at their website to grab a number for how much exploits can bring in. I briefly checked some of the others and I think you are overstating the impact of all of them. Moritoriko (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stephen Sims, "The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation", DEF CON 32, 2024, [1]
^ UAE’s EDGE advances cyber acquisition with Crowdfense and plans further expansion, Tactical Report, 2024, [2]
^ Pierluigi Paganini, "Crowdfense launches $30M exploit acquisition program", Security Affairs, 2024, [3]
^ EDGE Group punta ad acquisire Crowdfense per rafforzarsi nella cybersicurezza, Analisi Difesa, 2024, [4]
^ Boom dei costi degli 0day, no-click su mobile: 9 milioni di euro sul listino Crowdfense, Red Hot Cyber, 2024, [5]
^ Crowdfense: 0day broker rises acquisition price for 2024, Cybersecurity-Help.cz, 2024, [6]
^ ICS zero-day exploit makes debut at Idaho cyber lab's S4, CyberScoop, 2024, [7]

Comment, I agree w/ HighKing's source analysis so leaning delete (although I can't access the Intelligence Online sources either)- but I found a few paywalled sources that seem to discuss the subject, a book[9] and a journal article[10]. Linking here in case anyone has access. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book has a total of three sentences which doesn't provide any in-depth info on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:CNMall41. There is no secondary source coverage, not even in the source for the controversy section. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 26 April 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 11:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embention Sistemas Inteligentes S.A

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources, as the organization does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on promotional content Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 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 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Recruitment

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

Company is not notable - Google search reveals no reliable news and few other sources. Existing references over-reliant on company-derived PR material (plus non-reliable LinkedIn and company website). Paul W (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination. Given sources are not significant neither secondary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any independent coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 22:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find sources about the company in my searches for sources. Maxim Recruitment does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRITE, no valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 1 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Communities Council

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

Non-notable, weak articke Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a company but a statutory Council of the Portuguese Government with public elections for the Portuguese diaspora. More info here: https://portaldascomunidades.mne.gov.pt/pt/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas

Information for Portugal's electoral commission as well: https://www.cne.pt/content/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas Diogo Costa (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In its current state as a stub it is indeed a "weak article", but that is not grounds for deletion. The council is a government advisory body and has focused coverage in governmental and independent reliable sources: [11], [12], [13], [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yue (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yue. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portuguese Communities Council (Conselho das Comunidades Portuguesas) is a notable official body that represents Portuguese citizens living abroad, advising the Portuguese government on issues concerning emigrants. The Wikipedia article should be kept because it documents a government-recognized institution, relevant to Portuguese diaspora politics--Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:17, 10 April 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 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugochukwu Chime

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For those who care, this is just a nonsensical effort to advertise one CEO, lacks a byline and fails WP:IRS. Overall, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of sixty CEO's in Nigeria is a flimsy claim to notability, when they're already know for using puffy language. I can't find anything further about this individual, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more WP:NOTLINKEDIN cruft for another non-notable business leader who just takes credit for things everyone else in their company does. Nathannah • 📮 17:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not independent to satisfy the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:49, 2 April 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 14:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise East Entertainment

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

Sources are related to the respective films produced by the subject and do not provide any coverage of the production house itself. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Business, India, and Tamil Nadu. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am unable to locate any English language significant coverage of the topic, however there remains a strong possibility that sigcov may exist in a language other than English. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These types of film production companies in India never have any independent, significant coverage about them in their local language either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to come off as credible "never" isn't the word to use as it immediately makes you seem unserious, you're either being hyperbolic or you're just wrong. Consider using "rarely" instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally used never because, in practice, these production companies in India do not receive independent, significant coverage in their local language. By 'these', I mean production companies that pop up without any significant backing, often founded by newcomers with little to no experience in the field, making it difficult for them to sustain themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it never or is it in practice they don't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, it hasn't happened till now, so we can discuss the nuances of the wording once someone sets a precedent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have done notable films and production is notable Monhiroe (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company can not be notable just because it has done a lot of notable films. Please provide some sources as to how the production is notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic simply does not meet the notability guidelines. As far as I know, I could not find any source, whether in English or Tamil or any other language, that discusses the subject in detail. Most (if not all) sources used in the article and on the search engine mostly talk about the film(s) in question and not the production company alone. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NCORP with no indepth coverage on the organization itself. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 31 March 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!} 23:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SiGMA Group

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable affiliate marketing company. Most of the references are press releases from the company. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I live in Canada so my search results are skewed towards Canadian companies, but there are at least three other Sigma Groups in just Canada, and like this article's topic, none of them have reliable, in-depth coverage. I.e. this company might not even be the primary topic, as all the companies are equally unnoteworthy. Yue🌙 20:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a run-of-the-mill gaming/gambling trade thing, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Definitely one of the companies of all time with minimal notability. This company is definitely not a sigma. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the biggest or one of the top companies in its field. Though it currently has pretty pr-ish and superficial sources, but I found some good coverage in Malta news, and paywalled one on the German FAZ. Also, Maltabusinessweekly and Malta Today presented already in the article cover the subject in detail. Surprisingly, a random event I found during a search, organized by this company, attracted 25,000 visitors. The page should be reduced and cleanedup for neutrality.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have knowledge of Maltese journalism but please link even paywalled articles (It takes additional effort trying yo verify with the FAZ site search function. Also how many visitors were reported at an event does not give WP notability.IgelRM (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I initially considered deletion, but later realized that better sources exist, and the group page focuses more on its significant international events rather than just the company itself. In general, the sources discuss events extensively and their impact, for example, on Malta's economy, as the subject is a major event organizer in several countries, including Brazil. There is substantial coverage in Portuguese about Sigma and its local subsidiary and with descriptions of local events organized by it. I think the page should be re-focused to include these events and their impact. --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All available coverage is press releases or entirely based on company announcements, failing independence. Keep !voters should list specific sources so they can be evaluated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in Malta national press: Talk.mt [15]

The SiGMA Group, a leading organization in the iGaming and emerging technologies sector, recently hosted the world's largest gaming festival in Malta. The event took place at the MFCC Ta' Qali and attracted approximately 25,000 delegates, 1,000 exhibitors, and 200 start-ups representing over 80 countries. The five-day event combined three major summits: SiGMA iGaming Summit, AIBC Summit, and Med-Tech World Summit, serving as a platform for business networking, knowledge sharing, and collaboration among industry leaders, experts, and innovators. The SiGMA Europe Malta Summit has demonstrated a measurable economic impact on Malta. The event is estimated to generate economic activity equivalent to sustaining 950 full-time jobs annually across various sectors. This includes not only the gaming industry but also hospitality, retail, and manufacturing businesses that provide services and products linked to the event and its participants.

The influence on Malta’s tourism sector was also notable, with visitors to the summit occupying over 60% of the country’s 4- and 5-star hotel beds during their stay — significantly higher than the usual 40% occupancy rate seen in November. The 2019 SiGMA Malta event contributed approximately €6 million in value added to the Maltese economy through both the event itself and tourist expenditure, representing 0.05% of the country’s total value added. Data from 2019 also indicates that firms in Malta operating within sectors tied to the SiGMA event directly contributed €194 million in value added to the economy, accounting for 7% of the total value added in those industries. SiGMA Group has expanded its global presence with a series of international events planned across five continents in 2023. The expansion includes the launch of SiGMA Africa in Kenya in January, marking the organization's first dedicated African event. Later in the year, SiGMA will participate in The Maleth Project III, supporting Malta’s third space bioscience research mission.

another from Times of Malta:

SiGMA Group’s biggest show to date closed its doors last week after three days packed with conferences, workshops, a high energy expo floor, and premier networking events. Official numbers put the number of attendees for the show at just over 15,000, making SiGMA’19 the group’s biggest ever event. Live gaming and eye-catching stand designs made this year’s expo a feast for the senses. Exhibitors brought a global flavour to the summit, showcasing cutting-edge games and software, offering innovative industry solutions, and bringing crucial networking opportunities to delegates looking to make next-level connections and deals. With energy high throughout the three-day-event, the expo floor was the place to be for delegates looking to mix business with pleasure. The annual SiGMA start-up pitch also brought investment opportunities and sound business advice to start-ups looking to gain a foothold in the industry as they battled it out for the top prize. A fiercely-fought battle saw Bethereum crowned its winner for its social betting solution built on blockchain technology. --多少战场龙 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both are specifically covering events by the company and feel rather fluffy. IgelRM (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the topic appears to be not an affiliate marketing, but event-organizer, the largest ongoing events in its niche. There are reports with good coverage on the company itself on the influence of Sigma group on Malta economy and the Sigma Group’s impact on Malta’s economy, contributing roughly one percent to GDP growth, which is notable. I've added the wpbefore good sources on economy impact to the page into a separate section. Maybe it will help. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are independent. Source 1 is a press release, source 2 comes from this press release, source 3 is also a press release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is this press release. The first source is heavily promotional, which is indicative of a press release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will editors arguing to Keep this article provide links or, at least, references to articles providing SIGCOV that are not press releases? This is typical in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Sources covering the events organised by the company go towards notability of the event, not of the organiser. Similarly "reports of good coverage" are not part of the criteria - we are not concerned with volume, but with the quality of the content. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigma received wide substantial coverage in the national independent press and even became a tool for opposition to criticize the government after one of Sigma key international events was relocated from Malta to Milan. Opposition leader Bernard Grech noted that while the Sigma conference had “put us on the map,” the government's poor planning—evidenced by week-long traffic chaos—has led to “lost opportunities for Malta.” So, it seems quite notable for a company to put a particular country on a map thanks to its activities. And another Independent Malta news citation: "What is the problem? SiGMA or government? SiGMA is an opportunity, but we have a government who does not anticipate, think, invest, or understand that it is there for the Maltese," Grech said. The Malta Independent:[16] [17] And here we see the prime minister giving a free advertisement for Sigma by inaugurating the official opening of the new office for Sigma i Malta. [18] And here the ministry of economy says he is lucky to see more profitable tourists, like those attracted by Sigma, coming to Malta.[19] Aside coverage on the company, the good coverage is also about past Sigma Malta by the same newspaper: [20] Xrimonciam (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WNEXIST. It's not the best argument and I'm not happy with the current sources, but I spent some time and it seems that not everything is online (accessible) but the independent media cover the company pretty well. For instance, https://timesofmalta.com/article/today-front-pages-march-28-2025.1107254 this the 28 March 2025 review of newspapers from Malta Times says that L-Orizzont, national daily newspaper, “leads with news about the expansion of Sigma Group”. I cannot find it online (it’s not web-accessible I guess), but I think that such coverage likely happens quite often as the last one appeared just several days ago and was spotted in the news review by Times of Malta. In November’s review of news there is a mention of the existence of the deep coverage on Sigma again (but not in online form) Citation: L-Orizzont dedicates most of its front page to a curtain-raiser for Sigma, a gaming sector expo that begins next week. I will come back if find something else Unicorbia (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: funny to see how Sigma is interconnected with the Malta as a country. The current Prime Minister openky discusses he problem of Sigma moving to Milan (already mentioned above) and trying to analyze and explain why this happens, underlining the impact Sigma has on the country prosperity and even politics. [21] [22]. The Malta government after Sigma moved to Milan, started building a new venue conference hall. And that is directly caused by Sigma: [23], [24]. Longer interview in partly text version is available here [25]. Also traffic jams created by Sigma conferences are a huge problem for the traffic patrols who even elaborated on a particular plan called "Sigma venue traffic plan" [26] [27]. TV news channels, shows etc might have much more. Unicorbia (talk) 13:52, 1 April 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 23:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heka (company)

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

Prodded by Guessitsavis, deprodded by now-blocked sock; bringing to AfD for clarity. I am skeptical of WP:NCORP. The sources are generally junky press-release type pieces. Note that Bru Times News appears to be a PR firms outlet, or that seemed to be the consensus when this sock ring was last active. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to be all press release churnalism. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any actual reporting about this company that wasn't written by the company themselves. I was hoping to find some review somewhere about the mattress but I can't even find that (not that it would give notability to the company). Moritoriko (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HEKA, an AI mattress company, likely meets Wikipedia's notability criteria due to significant coverage in reliable and independent industry publications like Sleep Review Magazine and Sleepopolis. However, the current Wikipedia article on Heka relies on questionable sources and requires substantial improvement to its sourcing and content. --Xrimonciam (talk) 08:39, 1 April 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. Not going to salt, for WP:BEANS reasons. asilvering (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDCLIFFE Partners

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: WP:Articles for deletion/Redcliffe Partners * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources cited: 6 are press releases published by the EBA, 2 are press releases published by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, 2 are press releases on the company's own WWW site, 1 is a press release published by the USIDFC, 1 is a press release on the company's LinkedIn page, 1 is a listing page that is empty, 1 the Financial Times is behind a paywall, 1 is a law firm directory listing, 2 are press releases/autobiography by Clifford Chance, 3 are ranked directories of companies, 3 are shortlistings for awards (not actually winning them), 1 is an interview published by a marketing consultancy, 2 are dead links, 1 is a press release on gazeta.ua, 2 are ranking listings and an interview on yur-gazeta.com, 1 is a list of corporate sponsors of an event, 1 simply mentions that the firm handled a contract, 2 are page not founds, 3 are about law and business practice in Ukraine in general (2 not even mentioning this company, the other quoting its CEO), 1 is about a person who worked at the company applying for another position, 4 are CEE Legal Matters recycling press releases, 2 are CEE Legal Matters covering itself, 1 is CEE Legal Matters interviewing executives, 2 are CEO interviews by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a recycled press release by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a corporate puff piece in Comments.UA.
There is not a single reliable in-depth on-point independent source in the lot of them. This is egregious corporate puffery. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Redcliffe Partners. This version should have been drafted and submitted it via WP:AFC, where a discussion on the article's merits could have properly occurred. Also importantly, the article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG -- this is obvious from the above analysis of sources by Uncle G. - tucoxn\^talk 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did find Kyivpost, and partly Comments and Gazeta.ua have the decent coverage, but it's true that interviews and paid placements are not included here. I think more sources exist, given the vast activity of the law firm at home. Unicorbia (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Decent coverage" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability, nor is "I think more sources exist". Can you provide sources that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP and WP:N and was previously salted. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the largest law firm in Ukraine with good coverage (both in law-focused and general media), huge government related topics involved.--OatPancake (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "one of the largest law firm in Ukraine" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability, nor is "good coverage", etc. Can you provide sources that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With the exception of the Kyiv Post piece, I agree fully with Uncle G's source analyis and see no pass on WP:NCORP. The capitalization in the title is clear SALT evasion, and if page creator wants to recreate a page on a SALTed topic, a WP:DRV is the first step. Given this effort at evasion, I would support SALTing the all-caps title as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hmm. looks suspcious but when to dig deeper it likely meets Ncorp as the major law firm working on the big deals of the government and has so-so media coverage in the national press and government papers. I suggest, not all sources may be found online, as it changed the name (NEXIST). Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "likely meet Ncorp"? Which references can you provide that meets the criteria for establishing notability? What sources that refer to previous names? What "not-online" sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that all but one of the "Keep" !voters are very new users, and all of the "Delete" !voters are long-established users. That's suspicious. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and avoiding the salting of the previous article name should result in this being salted too. 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⁺⁺ 12:44, 15 April 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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wero (payment)

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

I recommend the deletion of the Wero (payment) Wikipedia page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the mobile payment industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in RS [28], [29], [30]. [31], [32] Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article corresponds to an existing product, with highly coverage by the recent news [33], [34], [35] and is similar to another platforms with already existing Wikipedia articles like: IDEAL MobilePay Payconiq and is even a replacement for some of them. Agujero Negro (talk)(contributions) 15:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The of the citations presented by Oaktree b and Agujero Negro seem to be OK.Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep meets WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the correct solution here is to add sufficient citations of independent coverage, not a deletion proposal [36][37][38][39] Jogerj (talk) 11:55, 1 April 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. There has been little discussion and the overall arguments to keep and delete more or less cancel each other out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FindSALT

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

I propose the deletion of the FindSALT Wikipedia page due to its lack of notability, as it relies on limited sources that do not provide substantial independent coverage or establish its significance within the restaurant industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep I lean toward keeping this article. There is independent coverage in gulf news and Conde Nast traveler. The fact that someone had to clarify that the restaurant in london is not from UAE also suggests notability to me.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep LLM'ed/boilerplate rationale without one original word from the nominator themselves. Nathannah • 📮 12:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is an extensive media coverage in the Arab Middle-east newspapers. Norlk (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to see sources, not vague comments on how they exist. Where? How can I find them? I haven't turned up anything useful. Because this is a company (commercial enterprise) then 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. Is any of the "Keep" !voters find some good references, ping me and I'll check them out. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Would [40] [41] and [42] from the article count? Based on those three, I lean towards keeping this. It should probably be moved to just "SALT" though. Toadspike [Talk] 06:42, 17 April 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) 16:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleos insurance

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

Lack of notability, as it is primarily supported by limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination claims Eleos Insurance lacks notability due to limited sources and insufficient significant coverage. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Just a search on Google news highlights many. They seem to have partnerships with well-known financial companies. Additionally, industry papers & media have covered Eleos’s role extensively. All these points to a level of recognition and impact that supports notability beyond limited scope. Bytanco (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful, see WP:ORGTRIV. There is not much in mainstream media. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs amendment rather than deletion. Additional reliable secondary sources from industry publications, financial news, and regulatory filings should be incorporated. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but requires better sourcing, which aligns with Wikipedia's preference for improvement over deletion. Wikinoleakshere (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with... Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful,VViking_TalkEdits 14:18, 3 April 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 14:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caprinos Pizza

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone, failing to provide enough credible, verifiable content to justify its presence as a standalone entry on Wikipedia. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is notable, the page documents an uprising multinational Pizza parlour, despite this, one of the few things I agree with is the fact there's too much promotional content, these are leftovers from when a caprinos employee tried to edit Wikipedia for their favor. If you CAN find reliable sources about the topic please link them below.

- WinterJunpei :3 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Review: Colchester Caprinos a great option for pizza-lovers". Daily Gazette. 2024-03-03. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The review notes: "Caprinos Pizza opened in North Station Road last September. ... Walking in, I was instantly very impressed by the décor, which felt modern and clean. I was greeted warmly by a staff member and the service was quick, not just because I was the only one there. After deliberating and then realising I was actually not that hungry, I decided to go for a small margherita pizza with a BBQ dip, as well as a side of fries. For just £9.48, £6.99 of which was for the pizza, the price was definitely a positive. It was a short ten-minute wait for the cooking and prep before I collected the goods and headed home to try it out. I was pleasantly surprised with the pizza itself. It was full of flavour and tasted delicious. ... The fries were a little disappointing. However - as with many things, they were made better by the dipping sauce."
2. Aldridge, James (2024-09-27). "Pizza chain in Reading could keep selling food at 4am". Reading Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Caprinos Pizza in Wokingham Road is a chain takeaway that serves up a range of pizzas, sides, salads, wraps, desserts, milkshakes and more. Caprinos is a growing chain, opening up in Reading in the Spring of 2021, taking over from the closed Christian Community Action charity shop. It has nearly 100 takeaways in the UK, with other locations in Thatcham, Newbury and Slough. The chain is a decade old, with the first Caprinos Pizza opening 20 miles away in Didcot in 2014."
3. Manuschka, Jacob (2024-08-08). "Oxford United kit to feature Caprinos Pizza logo this season". Bicester Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Oxford United has partnered with a pizza company in a deal which will see the firm become the official sleeve sponsor of the men's team. Caprinos Pizza, a chain founded in Oxfordshire, will sponsor the team for the 2024/25 season. ... Established in 2014, Caprinos Pizza has expanded to now have 99 stores across the UK, Ireland and Pakistan. In 2021, it opened its 40th branch, in Northcourt, Abingdon, having started with a store in Broadway, Didcot. ... The pizza takeaway service quickly became extremely popular within Didcot, causing the owners to branch out to other towns across the South East."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caprinos Pizza 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) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news articles of this chain are limited to local papers talking about new stores opening. The only exceptions are a couple articles saying that one franchise wanted to open late and a local paper saying that they sponsored a regional football team. Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is like Jimbo Wales writing about his the restaurant he went to and WP isn't Wikivoyage, so Delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Really only of local interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the sources given above seem hyper-local, with nothing beyond routine local news. I don't see any national or international sourcing... Being a great local place is fine, but we need something more than what we have for sourcing to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 1 April 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. ✗plicit 03:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content appears promotional in tone. Additionally, the article does not provide substantial historical context or unique insights that justify its standalone existence. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some potential good sources but on a closer look they fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. For example, this article is basically an interview, this article is paid (see disclaimer "PARTNER CONTENT"), and this article is just full of quotes like "Mr Chandran says", "Mr Latheef says", "the founders say", "the partners say", "Mr Latheef adds", "chief executive of MySyara, says", and then at the end they posted a brief interview. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles here will establish notability: Forbes, The National News, Middle East Business, Expeienece Abu Dhabi, Jawlah, Zawya. I will stop here. There are many more. I also don't see anything that sounds promotional. The content is strictly about their major milestones, historical facts, such as acquisitions and partnerships. There is not much difference between this and hundreds of other similar companies on Wikipedia. Dear Nominator: Please name me one section that you think is promotional and I will remove or revise it. There is no need for deletion if the article can be improved. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: It is also suspect that a user with around 50 edits started doing nominations for page deletions. I think such tasks should be reserved for more experienced editors. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep subject is notable and nominator's suggestion that significant coverage from reliable sources is missing is inaccurate. Please perform WP:BEFORE before nominating. Just because the article needs work does not mean that the subject is not notable. Nayyn (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 9 April 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 14:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altacit global

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

Spammy recreation of Altacit Global, which was nuked under G5 earlier; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy (permalink to latest report). As for the company itself, much of its coverage is in the form of PR pieces, paid-for puff pieces like this, or some passing mentions with no further detail. Subject fails WP:NCORP and by a good margin. Java Hurricane 11:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Java Hurricane 11:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, removed another one from the Harvi/SI SEO farm. Most of the rest is directory listings, puff press. Very likely sock or another UDPE, but will let checkuser look at it. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIGCOV Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Labov marketing communications and training

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

No indication of notability (NCORP), mainly unsourced page with promotional content. Cinder painter (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little content is referenced, and of the three references, one is directly tied to the subject and other is a local chamber of commerce (whose main task is to promote local businesses). So there's one article that's independent and reliable, which maybe (or maybe not) establishes notability. I've tagged the article as needing more references, but I don't think the company meets notability criteria. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTPROMO - This looks to be an unfinished recruitment advertisement. Of the three sources, one is a book written by this company's founder. The key people are all red links. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 25 March 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gridbeyond

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

Despite the attempt to make it seem otherwise, there is no useful coverage of the article subject I could find, and citing 4 copies of every press release (or churnalism of the same) about a funding round or a new contract signed does not make for an encyclopedic article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, and Ireland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nothing right now to indicate notability, WP:SIGCOV is not met (regurgitated press releases don't count.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NCORP isn't met. My own WP:BEFORE searches return the same coverage we see in the article. Which, per nom, are the same "reprinted press releases about funding rounds" churnalism (mostly from Apr/May 2024 and incl RTÉ, The Currency, etc) we might expect to see for just about any similar-stage startup/scaleup. While my own BEFORE searches also return further coverage (from Oct/Nov 2024 and incl RTÉ, Silicon Republic, Business Post, etc) it is also of the "republished press releases about funding" variety common for just about any similar stage company. It is not independent or in-depth coverage. (FYI: I considered recommending "draftify", but the SPA/PAID/COI/REFBOMB patterns, evident in the title's creation, are difficult to overlook....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 27 March 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) 16:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Race Craft

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

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Amigao (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, Connecticut, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
REASON? 2001:8A0:FA64:2600:9CEF:9F65:CE46:DC42 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— 2001:8A0:FA64:2600:9CEF:9F65:CE46:DC42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reply - as Galactic said, the non-primary sources have a bias towards the company, and lack independence of the subject. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Keep - all sources are independent and non biased and not promotional 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— 188.83.21.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking duplicate !vote Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge with personal page. All sources seem non promotional and non biased. Makes sense to merge with personal page 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— 188.83.21.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, although somewhat weak. Ignoring the SPA argument, all non-primary sources seem to be have a bias towards the company, and are probably not independent of the subject. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a tiny run of the mill company. It has three employees on LinkedIn and 11 followers there. It could get bigger, depending upon Trump's tariffs, but that's speculation. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NCORP fail. BD2412 T 01:42, 7 April 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. Malinaccier (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Pipe & Steel

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

All I could find were press releases and announcements regarding the company. Could not find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nor does it meet any criterion of WP:NCORP. Sources are all primary or casual mentions. Obvious promotional article is obvious. Ravenswing 20:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and promotional sources only. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 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!} 22:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Oorja Distilleries Private Limited

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

Fails GNG. Most of the provided sources are unsupported by given sources. Few press releases and passing mention. Rest are primary sources. The amount of unsourced information provided here also indicates COI & Advertising. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am participating in this AfD via WP:ARSMENUS. The page is not rescuable, as the company fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 17:27, 28 March 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 11:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Alumni

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

None of the cited sources have covered this company in-depth. In my WP:BEFORE, I mainly found press releases or similar coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent sources found. Does not meet WP:NCORP criteria. Rimesodom (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another tech company trying to reinvent the trophy case and memorial plaques, inevitably with advertising to suck school revenues away from actual education. I also take a very dim view of article hijacking as was done on Wall of fame (disambiguation) to add this idiocy; pinging @Magnolia677: and @MrOllie:, who tried to warn Chase8420138538 (talk · contribs) but were clearly IDHT'ed. Nathannah • 📮 19:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NCORP. --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand how this fails the WP:NCORP. Can I keep this as a draft until we obtain enough sources that pass WP:NCORP? Chase8420138538 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Userfication/draftification is not appropriate in this case due to the creator's WP:Tendentious repeated attempts to promote this company. This article was draftified, subsequently declined at AfC, then tendentiously moved to mainspace. The article creator has been promoting this company for over a year. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage to establish WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 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 11:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paravel

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

lacks notable, verifiable sources proving its subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 24 March 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 01:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YachtWay

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 24 March 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 23:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable. A couple are from Yellow Pages and a couple are dead. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notbale and poor sourcing. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 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 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is poor, topic not notable. Maybe better for Japanese wiki. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not properly made, and sourcing isn’t the greatest… Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:28, 7 April 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 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Ağacı

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I could find is receiving a grant from the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and some blog posts. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Turkey. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find reliable sources. Unicorbia (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:27, 1 April 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chingari (app)

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

Majority of the references are press releases or announcements. No significant coverage. Does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage such as brief mentions, routine announcements, and press releases is all I find. Nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be promotional, and the references are mostly press announcements. Sethi752 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are not more than simple passing mentions and press releases. Above all they are not independent. Go with Nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there are no sources to create notability for the article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't all press releases, but indeed almost all. And the 1 that isn't isn't about this subject specifically. A quick search for sources turns up the same kind of sourcing as that one: being about the TikTok ban and giving a list of things that were created to fill the void, rather than discussing this one specifically. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References consist of promotional content, trivial mentions, and non-reputable sites. XwycP3 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 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!} 23:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I can't access aka.tv, but the other sources only contain routine corporate announcements. aka.tv is a trade publication and is unlikely to contain non-routine coverage per WP:TRADES. Winning some obscure industry awards does not count towards WP:NCORP. I was unable to find any non-routine coverage. Deproded in 2019. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely self-promotional; fails WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily, nothing important, not notable. Cinder painter (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:PROMO and WP:N. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage found JunkBorax (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 28 March 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) 19:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

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

Fails notability test. It is not covered in any significant news, and the 4 references from those news sources covered the company once or twice. Its your ordinary real estate company out of millions. It is not really deserving of an article when they have not done anything notable. Also the article was once ghostwritten by a editor with a COI but was later fixed. In other notes, their LinkedIn profile only has 700 followers which only further proves non notability. DotesConks (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. DotesConks (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this article via the CoI notice board and agree that there doesn’t seem to be anything other than routine coverage (threadbare reports of the company buying and selling properties). OsFish 03:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough about this company to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I know there's a tendency to dismiss coverage about companies buying and selling assets as inherently WP:CORPTRIV, but I don't think that's the case here once you actually read the sources. There's plenty of coverage of this company buying and selling properties that also contains substantial analysis about the company and its strategy, and which doesn't fall into the category of standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. I would say that these articles are the clearest examples: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. These ones are a little weaker, but still go somewhat beyond routine announcements in my view: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. And all of these sources are from the Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian, which are reliable sources that I would consider high-quality coverage for this kind of topic. I think this one will largely come down to interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH, but in my view enough of these sources provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization to satisfy WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless improved per WP:HEY this article created by a COI editor qualifies for WP:TNT. 🄻 🄰 17:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass corporate notability. This article started as a draft, and was declined three times, and resubmitted with only minor improvements. After the third resubmission, I Rejected it, at which point it was moved to article space, ignoring the rejection. It was then correctly draftified by User: लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक. It was then moved back to article space again. This article has been reference-bombed, but analysis of the sources shows that none of them satisfy general notability. They are either from the corporate web site, or are press releases, or are routine coverage of property sales and purchases.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.smh.com.au	Syndey Morning Herald - A press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.apimagazine.com.au	An interview that reads like an advertorial	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.quintessential.com.au	Corporate web site	No	Yes	N/A	No
4	www.businessnewsaustralia.com	Reads like a press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	www.theindustrialist.com.au	Reads like a press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
6	thefifthestate.com.au	Reads like a press release	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	https://www.quintessential.com.au/discover-quintessential#aboutsection	From the corporate web site	No	Yes	N/A	No
8	thefifthestate.com.au/innovation	An interview about Geelong	No	Not about the company, only about Geelong	Yes	No
9	thepropertytribune.com.au/	A press release about the acquisition of a building	No	Yes	Yes	No
10	www.businessnewsaustralia.com	Another press release about the same building	No	Yes	Yes	No
11	www.quintessential.com.au/invest#trackrecord	From the corporate web site.	No	Yes	N/A	No
12	www.afr.com	A press release about a sale of a building.	No	Yes	Yes	No
13	www.theaustralian.com.au	A report about the sale of a building.	Maybe	Yes	Yes
14	www.realestatesource.com.au	A report about the purchase of a building.	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Not about the company.
15	www.theindustrialist.com.au	A report about construction.	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Not about the company.
16	www.commercialrealestate.com.au	A report about a property sale.	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Not about the company.
17	www.realcommercial.com.au	Another report about a property sale.	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Not about the company.
18	www.realestatesource.com.au	Another report about a property purchase.	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Not about the company.
19	www.afr.com/property/commercial/quintessential-equity-in-73-million-office-buy-20221219-p5c7di	Another report about a property purchase.
20	www.quintessential.com.au/discover-quintessential#esgsection	From the corporate web site.	No	Yes	N/A	No
21	play.google.com	Documentation of an app	No	Yes	No. User-generated content.	No
22	apps.apple.com	Documentation of an app	No	Yes	No. User-generated content.	No
23	https://v/2018/06/15/rics-oceania-award-winners-2018/	Says that Q was awarded Property Fund of the Year.	Yes	No. One mention in a long list of awards.	Yes	No
24	www.theurbandeveloper.com	Nomination for an award	Yes	No.	Yes	No
25	www.quintessential.com.au	Corpoate web site says it achieved carbon neutrality	No	Yes	N/A	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your analysis of the sources currently in the article (with some exceptions, e.g. the pieces in the AFR and the SMH are obviously not press releases), but did you look at any of the coverage that I linked above? I also disagree that reports about property purchases are inherently routine or trivial — while some obviously are, I would say that a number of the articles about this company's property purchases also contain some meaningful degree of analysis. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a) per the table above fails WP:NCORP which requires multiple sources that meet the criteria. b) the article would need to be completely rewritten to meet rewritten to meet wikipedia standards. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly announcements and not deep coverage about the company. Darkm777 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 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. Consensus that reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG is available. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pollo Brujo

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

A chain with 10 locations just does not seem notable enough to me. There is some coverage, but it does not seem significant to me. One of the references used is an Ubereats link. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Latin America. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick look at the news tells us there is significant coverage on reliable sources. Also, as per nominator, it is ten locations IN GUATEMALA plus elsewhere, not ten locations only. Janette La Bruja Martin (dime?) 15:46, 22 March, 2025 (UTC)
Comment Per ads and advertorials in Newspapers.com, it started in the 1970s in Mexico, and by 1998 also had locations in Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama (to add to Colombia and Costa Rica as stated in this article). It sounds pretty big. As for coverage, there seems to be a book about it [58], published by Universidad de las Américas Puebla. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, number of locations by itself does not establish notability. Reliable secondary sources reviewing or writing about the chain though would. While it is unclear exactly how many restaurants in this chain exist, what is clear is that it is not notable enough, at least for now, to have an article on Wikipedia. Sorry. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, arguments that this is better suited to the Spanish Wikipedia are cogent, but also this barely does pass GNG for WP-En so I am changing my !vote to a Keep.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since sort of simialr to Pollo Campero. Thought it seems more fit for spanish wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 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. Owen× ☎ 08:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naari

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

Un-sourced article filled with promotional content. No indication of company's notability and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Unable to find significant coverage in WP:BEFORE. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, and Karnataka. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is nothing more than advertisement of a pharma company. Fails WP:ORGCRITE.Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. doesn't have any sources. My search produced a few press releases only.Darkm777 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No sources on the page to help with any significant coverage. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 25 March 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!} 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D-Lightsys

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

Does not appear to be any real information about the company beyond being owned by Radiall. Beyond that not seeing any notability. GamerPro64 05:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and France. GamerPro64 05:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have any sources. None could be found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The specific d-lightsys domain went blank about 10 years ago and it seems to be one among several of Radiall's product lines [59]. I am noting the 2004 item in Les Echos, but that is effectively start-up coverage, insufficient to demonstrate lasting notability. There is no article on Radiall to serve as an ATD target (though there is a fr.wiki article). Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 28 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [60], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [61]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "independent publishing" review by itself helps to bring this to the level of notability by secondary sources where I would !vote for a keep to weak keep. Dorrance doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and there level of verifiable notability is sufficient, though not deep nor wide. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While sourcing isn’t the strongest, I believe there's enough historical and ongoing relevance to justify keeping this article. The company has been around for over a century, and there’s independent coverage going back decades including mentions related to early 20th-century publishing and more recent discussions like the class action lawsuit. It may not be widely celebrated, but it’s clearly part of the self-publishing landscape and has been consistently visible. That longevity and traceable impact meet the basic notability standards under WP:ORG. Pridemanty (talk) 12:41, 7 April 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!} 18:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GLX Digital

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

Does not fulfill the notability requirements Somajyoti (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Somajyoti (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Singapore, Qatar, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Nothing on JSTOR, nothing on Gbooks, nothing relevant on Scholar, four press-releases on EBSCO. Of those four, this one is possibly not from the company itself and might be a usable source. It makes clear that the company is (or at least, was in 2020) in its earliest infancy, so not a topic of encyclopaedic interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quick search to add Google and Google News to the list of searches. Some press releases and mentions but nothing even close to WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have reliable sources. My search produced a few press releases only .Darkm777 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 27 March 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 23:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Bins

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this company which manufactured solar-powered bins with advertising, and cannot find coverage to add. The existing references are primary sources or local newspapers. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Redirect to the company's founder, William Sachiti, might also work. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a small amount of press related to the show it was on but not enough to establish NCORP. Would agree a redirect would be appropriate but not to the promotional page for the founder. Instead, redirect to List of Dragons' Den (British TV programme) offers Series 1-10 where it is covered. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG (if it was actually a notable company, one might wonder why it seems to have gone out of business without anyone commenting). As suggested above, possibly a redirect to the relevant TV series article would seem to be justified, certainly nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and those above. A clear WP:NCORP fail on coverage. BD2412 T 22:44, 28 March 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!} 01:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HICC Pet

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP - sourced to press releases and advertorials.

Note: Initially a redirect, seeking consensus for deletion/restoration of the redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the page isn't kept, it should be deleted, and HICC should get redirected to Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect: Per nom; clearly non-notable pet supply company. I was unable to find any independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 21 March 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. Strong arguments on both sides, with a numerical majority for the Delete side, but not to the point of even a rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [62][63] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at local news from in and around Long Island there are several articles discussing the expansion that has occurred and will continue into the near future at this hospital. I added the section regarding the new ER and soon to be added pavilion. I'm sure there will be added services into this new space and more to add to this article. At the very least the deletion could be delayed to see where the hospital goes. Cactusyield (talk) 01:02, 6 April 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!} 22:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanashi Media

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

I can't find evidence that this publishing company meets WP:NORG. The mentions it gets in news coverage all appear to be WP:ROUTINE announcements along the lines of "Hanashi Media is publishing X thing". There seems to be only one plausibly significant coverage, this OASG article, but I'm not convinced that OASG is an RS, and one source is not enough for an article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Anime and manga, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. 4 articles from Anime News Network, count only one time towards notability.Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Even the Anime News Network should be treated as a WP:TRADES publication for purposes of determining the notability of entities in the anime industry, and thus is should not count toward NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Conservation Nepal

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic entry Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Environment, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came into thinking about !voting redirect to List of Birdlife Partners, but I've found several sources which discuss this particular organization in detail enough for WP:NORG. Their vulture program[64][65][66] and birding app[67][68] in particular both got international attention, and I've incorporated that information into the article. There's a lot of passing mentions in scholar sources, due the amount of data BCN produces on Nepalese bird populations, so I'm still filtering through those to see if there's anything in academia about them (given the coverage so far, I strongly suspect there might be - absolutely there's some in connection with the Indian vulture crisis). But anyways, I've rewritten the article and the new sources in it should demonstrate how it passes WP:GNG and NORG. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 21:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has been greatly improved since nomination and passes NORG. मल्ल (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Big improvement in content and sourcing since this was first listed here. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on improvements done.Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:53, 29 March 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 VMware#Acquisition by Broadcom as a sensible ATD, without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omnissa

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

not notable software (WP Product) Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Omnissa is the new name for what was a whole EUC division of VMware. There are wiki pages for the two main products of VMware Horizon (which should now be called Omnissa Horizon) and AirWatch (which should be called 'Omnissa Workspace ONE') MrTAP (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently configured, no notability has been established. The two references are press releases by the Omnissa and its new owner, KKR. They are not independent of the subject of the article and therefore shouldn't even be used as references. If this products lasts and gets independent coverage in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but not yet. Ira Leviton (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional references, but had only just started. Please note that both product wiki articles have existed for many years - they had just referred to the new company name but only linked to the old company name. MrTAP (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added references to two news articles on 'The Register' and 'TechTarget' regarding Omnissa being spun out of VMware. MrTAP (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete added sources are not reliable enough. However, if someone add new ones I may change my mind. Still think some sources may exist. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with VMware#Acquisition by Broadcom: Not quite enough coverage for a standalone article - I'm specifically concerned about the reliability of the TechTarget source, which is an opinion piece. Merging to its former parent company seems like the most natural solution. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be considered for deletion due to a lack of significant independent sources that establish its notability and its reliance on promotional content without context. However, it represents a newly formed company in the software and virtualization industry, which may gain relevance as it develops and potentially receives wider recognition in the future.--Xrimonciam (talk) 08:38, 1 April 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. Following Scope creep's thorough source analysis, consensus shifted clearly to the delete side. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Livebarn

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly nominated out of WP:REVENGE Delectopierre (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know revenge. Its too expensive. We will go the references in the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a news story whenever a locale purchases Livebarn. This is not WP:ROUTINE procurement coverage, nor is it WP:CORPTRIV. [69] [70] [71][72] Longhornsg (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its press-release that are being reported locally. Nothing that passes WP:SIRS We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to this, it self evidently passes WP:NCORP. This AfD wastes everyone's time.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a variety of reliable sources have been posted.yutsi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:

Ref 1 [73] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [74] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [75] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 4 [76] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [77] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [78] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

Ref 1 Its above.
Ref 2 Its above.
Ref 5 [79] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 6 [80] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
Ref 9 [81] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.

In fact not a single one of these references satisfy WP:NCORP. They fails WP:SIRS,WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources. Additionally, even if all of those were simply announcements of partnerships (they aren't) WP:CORPTRIV says absolutely nothing about partnerships being trivial mentions. Delectopierre (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR for non notable company. Scope Creeps analysis looks honest and accurate to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]

Describing a CBC article titled Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game that is quite literally about Livebarn and HomeTeam Live (a competitor of Livebarn's) as a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS is honest and accurate?

How about cherry picking a single sentence in that article that correctly the company's description to their website, and therefore discounting the CBC as not independent?

How about a NYT/Athletic article titled Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach as a routine annoucement of partnership?

Shall I keep going? Delectopierre (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't start WP:BLUDGEONING other editors because you don't like their !votes. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye in the sky is about streaming services in general and just uses those two as examples, making passing mentions of both.

The extent of coverage about Livebarn itself in that second article was taken from Livebarn themselves. That lacks independence.

NYT/Athletic Just mentions he watched games on Livebarn. Passing mention, No depth of coverage. Yes it does look like Scope characterised that one incorrectly but it's still trivial.

How about "Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release." Yes, honest and accurate. Found on business wire. Reads like a press release. Complete with contacts for both companies. Ends wi5th about sections on both. Obviously a press release.

How about "Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent." Yes, honest and accurate. Entire mention is "These investments included a recent $14 million investment in LiveBarn, ..." Clearly just a passing mention of an Investment in livebarn from the investor. Just a passing mention means it fails on point one of SIRS. Being from the investor means it fails point 2 of SIRS.

Those two show your pronouncement that "In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources." is not honest or accurate.

And how about The Albertan: "the Sundre Minor Hockey Association was pleased to announce the local launch of a LiveBarn service." Sounds like an announcement to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the assessment presented by scope_creep show that the subject doesn't pass notability guidelines.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE, does not appear to have sufficient valid secondary sourcing. I also agree with ScopeCreep's assessment. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsure if this is even encyclopedic. The sources do not seem strong. Not all streaming companies are notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLS International

(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. Apart from that, activities like winning outsourcing contracts, opening new visa processing centres, deploying AI-enabled HRMS solutions, signing MoUs with various embassies, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 20 March 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) 09:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the nominator's comment, this corporation fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. Current self-published coverage and press releases. See [82], [83], [84], [85]. AndySailz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. It's a contractor for paperwork. Maybe important paperwork, but still paperwork. How is that an allegation of notability? Also, the sources are a mix of regurgitated press releases and stock ticker reports. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT.- Imcdc Contact 10:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly Fails WP:NCORP.most of the sources are in the form of press release. Lacks coverage in secondary source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 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 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited

(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, WP:RS. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Kirloskar Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 20 March 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) 09:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage. Wp:SIGCOV Zuck28 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. - Imcdc Contact 02:58, 26 March 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 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manali Petrochemical

(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. Current page is just a WP:SPAM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 20 March 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) 09:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - it's another company that makes stuff like hundreds of other companies have done in the past 100 or 250 years. Essentially no sources that are independent. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Regarding sources, two are linked to the company website and the other is simply a company snapshot. - Imcdc Contact 10:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Of the 3 sources on the page, 2 are Non-independent sources and one has no coverage. RangersRus (talk) 16:21, 25 March 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 Yash Birla Group. (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birla Precision Technologies

(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. Apart from that, share price and its forecast are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. They are regularly reported as part of routine market updates without offering any deeper or exclusive insights. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 20 March 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) 09:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yash Birla Group, its parent company. This just makes stuff like a lot of other companies, and I don't see any allegations of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yash Birla Group: Agree with the above. (bearian) Zuck28 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yash Birla Group, the parent company. RangersRus (talk) 11:06, 27 March 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. This was based on source assessment and the lack of reliable, independent sources brought to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

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

This article is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation	Self-published, it is primary source.	~ I would think so.	Involve wrote about Involve.	✘ No
Companies House, UK	~ Technically, but are just routine listings.	Government agency. Verified.	Only about Involve.	~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung	Written by independent authors. No affiliation.	Academic paper.	Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same.	✘ 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}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO. Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusing a COI or Paid editing with no background. I am sure @Darkm777 would agree. I found the article through random article (alt-shift-x). For the record I have no affiliation with Involve or any comapany/group. "simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet" again, stop accusing editors.

"Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship" If you can prove it with references I will withdraw my nom, till then you have no basis that this think tank is notable.

"Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve", Please read WP:INHERITORG, the Big Tobacco trustee will not make Involve notable. If you think the petition or the trustee are notable write about them, but the think tank doesn't inherit the notability. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk giant I would be glad to reconsider my nomination should you produce some better sources. It doesn't matter how important or popular you think this organization is. If they were popular enough they would have more news coverage and qualify. This is the basis of Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one. Same sentiment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I can't delete this as a Soft Deletion as there is an unbolded Keep vote here. We will need to hear from a few more participants. It would be most helpful if you responded to the source analysis or brought up any new sources you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best coverage I could find was three sentences in this source (pages 160-161), which isn't really significant. Searching for SIGCOV is difficult because of the generic name, and the fact that a lot of sources merely cite one of Involve's publications without covering Involve. My search wasn't exhaustive, but I do not think SIGCOV is likely to exist. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:49, 30 March 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 23:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlacVolta

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

not notable digital company; the sources are either paid or not with reliable coverage of the subject (based on interviews or press-releases) Unicorbia (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another frivolous deletion nomination orchestrated by (Personal attack removed).Postit note warrior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia already has enough low-quality African-subject stubsPostit note warrior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments should be disregarded by the closer as they were made out of spite, and the self-proclaimed warrior is now blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are from low quality publications, The Ghana Report is about the founder, ameyawdebrah.con seems AI generated, ghanaweb has nothing to do with the company.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:21, 1 April 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) 11:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pandora! I have made changes in the article. Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I am not an expert in analyzing Indian sources, but the company seems to have the minimum notability for an article ([86], [87], [88]). If there is promotional content, it should be removed without prejudice to the existence of the article as a whole (WP:DINC). Svartner (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see articles that contain in-depth information on the company which is created using independent content. The article from Rail Analysis is regurgitating from a tender document abd contains insufficient in-depth "independent content". The second is from a real-estate company that rented them some offices and contains boilerplate regurgitates company spiel, fails ORGIND. The final article is regurgitated PR with no ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly promotional article. CJ Darcl Logistics provides a broad range of services... Most of the references are just press releases or announcements. the coverage is typical sponsored churnalism lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are press releases, announcements and churnalism. The article sounds promotional and has many sections that are unnecessary.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the recent changes, I believe the article follows the wikipedia guidelines with adequate information.Thanks!Rachitmisr (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work but the subject fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements as per WP:ORG and has been updated since the nomination as per WP:HEY Nayyn (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like the improvements to this article involved the removal of inappropriate content, not the addition of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CJ Darcl Logistics is a notable Indian logistics company with a significant history since its founding in 1986. Evidenced by its revenue of ₹4,594.5 crore (US$540 million) in FY24 and a large number of employees (6000+), CJ Darcl Logistics has a substantial presence in the logistics industry. Partnerships with major companies like Tata Motors and IndoSpace further support its notability.--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional fluff proped up by new accounts !voting keep. This sort of scenario almost always has an ulterior motive to it. Just no. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 12 April 2025 (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. Notably, none of the Keep !voters have addressed this elephant in the room - which sources (and which paragraphs within those sources) contain content that meets NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 15 April 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. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shola Akinlade

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

should be removed due to the lack of independent, reliable sources to support the claims made in the article. Akinlade's notability may be better covered within broader fintech topics instead of maintaining a dedicated article. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, Football, Software, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sporting Lagos F.C. as possible search term, does not look to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion and redirect proposer User:Xrimonciam makes the argument that this individual would be better covered in other topics, however they've also submitted this individual's company Paystack for deletion as well-- it seems a curious motivation to delete both of these when they both can be considered notable. This entrepreneur is certainly notable for the region and deleting would contribute to systematic bias on the site. Not only did Akinade get into Y Combinator, one of the first African startups to do so, their exit to Stripe is one of the biggest success stories for African fintech of recent history. The fact that he's now involved in owning a private football club is significantly notable beyond his business interests. More than fulfills the notability requirements Nayyn (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 08:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Meets WP:GNG: has appeared in multiple newspapers; owned a football club/team as well as holds a major stake in a Danish club; meets WP:ANYBIO, since he has been awarded with one of Nigeria's highest honour. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Shola Akinlade meets WP:ANYBIO through his receipt of the Officer of the Order of the Niger (OON) in 2022, one of Nigeria’s highest national honors and broadly comparable to the UK’s OBE. That distinction alone establishes notability. He is also the co-founder and CEO of Paystack, acquired by Stripe in 2020 in a deal reported as one of the largest in Nigeria at the time. These achievements are covered in multiple reliable sources including Reuters, Irish Independent, CNN, and Forbes (all WP:RS), satisfying WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO has been awarded with one of Nigeria's highest honour.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 27 March 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 breweries in California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mrfoogles: Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. This will remove about half of the listings and leave only the ones that are notable enough to have their own article. There are enough notable breweries in the county to justify an article listing them. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:48 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is also Beer in San Diego County, California#Notable breweries as a merge target. There are fewer than 20 notable breweries and we certainly don't need a standalone page for just a bulleted list when there's this article and the statewide list. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of breweries in California retaining only notable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of breweries in California: It makes more sense to merge list with list I think. Both lists should be trimmed of non-notable shops though. Moritoriko (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of breweries in California: Agree with Ajf773 above - None of the other counties have a separate page. Page for List of breweries in California is big, but as suggested above, it can be trimmed to keep only notable entries after the merge. Asteramellus (talk) 00:59, 3 April 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Maxim

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

No indication of importance No source was found either within the article or outside the article that meet notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV), a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article. All sources used herein are not secondary and do not comply with Wikipedia rules WP:ORGTRIV WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Information that a company has started operating in a particular country is still not proof of notability, since it is not a measure of the attention the company has received as well (WP:SPIP). By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Segovia Ar (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ride hailing service that operates in 1000 cities in 18 countries has a strong claim of notability. The nominator is a Single-purpose account entirely focused on Taxi Maxim. They began by adding content to the article and now they have decided to try to delete the article. Certainly, the article can be improved but deletion is not the correct outcome. I am confident that a Russian speaking editor familiar with Russia's business media could improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Segovia Ar - can you explain what is going on here? It's quite confusing. You created and are the primary editor of this article. It is also the only (minus 1) article you have edited. Your note on the article talk page says that it needs to be removed because "it is wrong". Lamona (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please speedy close this discussion as a keep since the proposer was recently indefinitely blocked because the account was being used for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. It was also in violation of Wikipedia's policy on undisclosed paid advocacy - tucoxn\^talk 07:54, 29 March 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 14:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zalman Tech Co.

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

Nonnotable business --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and South Korea. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom

120.29.79.29 (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more discussion and fuller deletion rationales here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 21 March 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'm leaving a longer than usual summary as there are a number of interventions made by persons connected to the entity under discussion. As a note to non-regular contributors, my conclusion is made purely on the discussion presented below. I've read through this twice. I've discouted all contributions that suggest retention which lack conformity to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and reliable sourcing. Of the contributions in conformity, that is those contributions which analyse sources to support or reject the subject's notability, two conclusions emerge; there are identifiable mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but these do not constitute significant coverage. The delete arguments are more affirmative in their assessment and refute arguments that some sources might constitute SIGCOV. Those refutations were not subsequently counter-refuted by those arguing keep, which as a group were less affirmative in their assessments. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lokad

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

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

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

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

Well, nothing much to say, article is entirely sourced to its on website. It was G11 deleted in 2015 but brought it here for more assessment of its currently notability standing perhaps there are sources somewhere which I failed to find Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and France. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising from the ceo. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard disagree. Yes, I happen to be the CEO, but the tone is neutral. A "Criticisms and Controversies" has been added. None of the other wikipedia pages discussing supply chain software companies has anything like that. This page already exceeds the standards that Wikipedia uphold for the quasi-totality of enterprise software companies. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, the content of this webpage can hardly be considered as "blatant adversiting". It is not hostile to the company and it mentions the specifics of the company but all Wikipedia pages about companies are similar in that regard. The reasoning according to which a Wiki page which presents a company in a favourable light should be deleted would lead to the deletion of essentially all pages about companies. This end result is disproportionate. It would also lead to another unfurtonaute consequence: people would only access the websites of companies, which are 100% promotional. Therefore, instead of deleting the webpage, I recommended a discussion about its content, if necessary. 109.190.36.117 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lokad is a major player in the supply chain optimization space, and as such it makes sense to have it on wikipedia even if, of course, one could consider it has an advertising effect for the company. But removing company pages based on this principle would lead to the deletion of most, if not all, company pages on wikipedia. I would approve the deletion if the page was explicitely displaying unproved marketing claims (like "provides the most powerful and efficient algorithm"), but the page as it is is just providing factual information about what they do, so I would not describe it as a "blatant advertising". Atchmoom (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to closing admin: Atchmoom's only edit is to this AFD, and the account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to include more non-Lokad sources. I have also introduce two sections to clarify the significance of the entry - beyond the corporate trivia (aka basic facts about Lokad). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Applying overly strict criteria for company pages could unintentionally lead to removing many valuable and informative entries from Wikipedia. Perhaps it's more beneficial to focus on improving content quality rather than deletion? NB: As a Tech Advisor and Head of ML & Innovation, I consistently recommend Lokad's resources for inventory optimization and supply chain management projects in the DACH region. Wikipedia article is a good start. "Criticisms and Controversies" help to provide a balanced perspective on the topic from the start. Abdullin Rinat (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Abdullin Rinat's only edits are to this AFD and the article's talk page. The account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a professor, director of the MSc programme at the Polytechnic University of Porto, Portugal, and resercher in the field of Supply Chain Science, I consider the open dissemination of advanced and innovative technical content to be of the utmost importance for universities and society in general. Typically, innovative technology companies do not have this facet of contributing to the dissemination of technical knowledge through channels of universal access and high quality scientific content. Lokad's contribution to science and society through the dissemination of relevant and innovative technical content deserves the highest recognition. Its wikipedia page has been extremely useful as a reference for the academic community of technical-scientific excellence and service to society. In order to avoid the loss that would result from deleting the page, I recommend that, if you think something should be changed, you request those changes, which I'm sure will be in line with LOKAD's spirit and values. Thank you. MJPLopes (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: MJPLopes's only edits are to this AFD and the article's talk page. The account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why this page is marked for deletion. Lokad is one of the few commercially successful AI startups in Europe. At a time when the general public largely equates AI with chatbots, highlighting companies that use AI to run operations (Lokad for supply chain optimization, the only other that comes to mind is aiomatic for predictive maintenance) is really important.
I myself run an AI optimization startup in the US (insideopt.com) and I know how much work is needed to educate the public that modern computer science allows us to bring efficiency to a world that is battling with uncertainty and limited resources. Lokad is a company that helps make our supply chains more resilient and avoid reduce unnecessary transportation and wasted products.
In my humble opinion, it fits Wikis mission to let the public know that these capabilities exist and exist as commercial offerings and not just in theory as research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinolf71 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Atchmoom, Abdullin Rinat, MJPLopes, Meinolf71, you're all arguing that Lokad is such a terrific thing/company/resource, and some of you are using your resume to support that opinion, but none of you are showing us the secondary sourcing, the in-depth reporting, the published assessments and evaluations that will prove that this is notable by our standards. Someone's opinion of how valuable something is is just not relevant here: what matters is if the subject meets, for instance, WP:NCORP. That is the only thing a closing administrator looks for. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Lokad page is arguably better than TradeGecko, TXT e-solutions, John Galt Solutions, Openbravo. Unlike all those companies, there are some notable contributions and technological achievements associated with Lokad (listed on the page). In particular the result at the M5 competition warrants - on its own - an inclusion. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's arguably worse then [list worse articles here]. That's not relevant. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Drmies, You reverted my change on Demand Sensing. This topic is one of the most absurd case of intellectual fraud in the last decade in supply chain. Just ask any supply chain professor... According to you, the role of wikipedia to embrace whatever nonsense random vendors are pushing? (Yes, they are my competitors, but it's still nonsense and fraud nonetheless) Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Meinolf71's only edits are to this AFD and two to Meinolf Sellmann, a guest speaker for Lokad. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Btw, insideopt.com has impressive contributions of its own. They are basically the one company that offers a stochastic (optimization) solver. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fully agree with this statement. Lokad releases regularly discussions around their main area of expertise in Supply Chains and does tremendous work to educate the supply chain community around different approaches, strategies, theories and use cases. I bel ve that it fits the education mission of Wikipedia 197.18.182.181 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, I have to ask a favor in such an obvious case--but could you? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, from the technical data, if there is a connection between the accounts, it would be of the coordinated variety.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we even try to attempt at assessing the merits and demerits of the actual Lokad page? I argue it is already better than the quasi-totality of the pages listing enterprise software vendors, especially when it comes to supply chain. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vermorel, no one has done that except the nominator. And when almost half a dozen brand-new editors show up, out of nowhere, all making the same argument, well. On top of that, we have an editor who makes edits like this one but claims they're not advertising. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those editors are quite well-known among supply chain circles - and they have nothing to do with Lokad: not clients, not (ex)employees, not contractors. As far I am concerned, I do have an obvious tie with Lokad (quite explicit though). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" - all we can tell on our end is that these screen names were recently registered. We have no way of knowing if they are who they claim to be. For this reason, we go on the strength of arguments made on the basis of the article's conformance to our standards, especially for reliable sources and notability, not on our personal opinions as to the merits of Lokad. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed some of the PhD thesis of Lokad. Please note that those PhDs have been validated by independent institutions, those materials are peer-reviewed. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any valid reason why deletion is posited as justifiable here - as noted, the edit has "nothing much to say"? A legitimate company that Wikipedia users may wish to research and find links to do more research. If this is not valid, then why is it valid to have pages discussing the likes of Blue Yonder or Oracle or any other commercial software or supply chain entity? All that is needed to make it more "valid" is the time for others to contribute to the page - as noted on the page itself presumably by editor(s). It if is taken down there will be no means for it to be further developed and enhanced by the broader Wiki user community and thereby benefit Wiki users seeking to expand their knowledge of supply chain technology. Ian Wright Iangbusa (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Iangbusa: The nominator, Ednabrenze, clearly said the thing was sourced only to its own website and that they could not find any other coverage. So if you want to counter that, it's actually really simple: show them the proper coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Surely Oracle Corporation has that sourcing; I just looked, and there are over 200 references, many of the secondary. Everything else is really just irrelevant, including "may wish to research", which is a version of "but it's useful"--see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oracle is a mega-corporation, one of the largest software company worldwide, and one of the oldest as well. This is an insane bar to met. The Lokad pages has several PhD listed, which are peer-reviewed by independent research institutions. Looking at the other wiki pages from comparable supply chain software vendors, none of that is present. The Lokad page is already above the standards met by those other wiki pages. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not an insane bar at all. A bit of coverage in newspapers and magazines? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  They haven't been added to the article yet, but there are handful of sources that demonstrate Lokad's involvement in bitcoin/cryptocurrency software development:
  
  ———
  
  [89]https://news.bitcoin.com/developer-releases-cash-db-a-terab-project-fork-for-the-bch-network/
  
  ———
  
  Proposal to incorporate Lokad's work into Bitcoin Cash: [90]https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/173
  
  "Lokad has been the custodian of this guideline and the associated list of protocols, but at this point, it makes sense to move this piece to the community repository."
  
  This work became known as the "Lokad ID": [91]https://upgradespecs.bitcoincashnode.org/op_return-prefix-guideline/
  
  Lokad ID was successful enough that its adoption continued into other projects such as eCash: [92]https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/master/doc/standards/op_return-prefix-guideline.md
  
  ———
  
  There are also various secondary sources available that discuss Lokad's Tokeda proposal. One such example: [93]https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@yogeshwar888/bitcoin-unlimited-s-andrew-stone-analyzes-the-tokeda-project
  
  There are other Lokad proposals such as Ansible, Sakura, and Midas, although finding secondary sources for those requires more digging. Jason B. Cox (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  None of these are reliable secondary sources (the proposals themselves are primary, blogs are unreliable and most crypto sites have issues with independence), and none of them contain more than trivial coverage of Lokad itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What is trivial coverage? All of these links contain commentary on R&D conducted at Lokad. Jason B. Cox (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Significant coverage should be about the company itself, not just the company's projects, and that coverage should be more just a sentence saying "this protocol was funded by Lokad". Disregarding that all the sources are primary, unreliable and/or not independent, notability of the company is not inherited from coverage of projects funded by the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. Here are some secondary sources from independent, reliable sources:
  
  https://www.challenges.fr/partenaires/letalkentreprise/lokad-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-service-de-la-supply-chain_895600
  
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-weakest-cloud-link-the-windows-azure-console/
  
  https://www.latribune.fr/journal/edition-du-1705/manager/technologie-innovation/404802/lokad-est-une-start-up-creee-par-un-groupe-de-cinq-informati.html
  
  https://static.latribune.fr/private/weekly/2013/20130628.pdf
  
  https://www.channelnews.fr/lokad-recoit-laward-windows-azure-platform-partner-pour-lannee-2010-7606
  
  And while not totally unbiased, this one deserves a mention on notability because it was a customer relationship turned investor: https://purusint.com/2018/05/23/lokad-case-study/ Jason B. Cox (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I looked at the Challenges piece while looking for sources and it identifies itself as sponsored. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Where does it identify itself as sponsored? Jason B. Cox (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Partenaire de Challenges" Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  My understanding is this refers to Le Talk Entreprise as a partner. LTE chose to do an interview with Lokad. I don't see anywhere that the piece itself was sponsored. Jason B. Cox (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure what difference that would make to the piece being independent. Regardless, hovering over the "i" next to the title reveals "Ce contenu est proposé par notre régie publicitaire. Il n'a pas été écrit par notre rédaction." AKA "This content is provided by our advertising agency. It was not written by our editorial team." Beyond this, the piece reads like an ad, it's common sense.
  
  This article will certainly be deleted based on the discussion here, I'm sorry. It seems like an interesting topic. Hopefully it can garner some greater attention in the press, and Joannes can let a person with no affiliation with the company/industry write a Wikipedia article. Best of luck to you all. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just about zero coverage in independent, reliable sources. PhD theses that are funded by Lokad are not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources often have interviews with CEO, which impacts consideration:
- Some coverage in Le Monde [94], debatable SIGCOV, leaning pro.
- In L'Express, [95] has some coverage.
- La Tribune has SIGCOV here, although I am unsure if it's independent.
- Same here from La Tribune, [96], although it seems more independent.
- More than a mere mention in another La Tribune piece [97]. More than a mere mention in this La Monde piece.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these sources, but I don't think any of them satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. E.g. the coverage in your first source is a single short paragraph that is mostly quoted from the founder. This La Tribune piece has the most coverage, but that's another paragraph mostly quoted from the founder, so not really satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, although I think you are being overly strict with CORPDEPTH in the case of the La Tribune piece: ~150 words are not quotes, which goes far beyond 100 words. My concern is more with independence of the piece. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page created by company CEO, citing non-independent sources or trivial coverage. It does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The proposed deletion of this article is unwarranted and detrimental to the dissemination of fact-based knowledge in the supply chain field. As a supply chain professional, I rely on transparent, data-driven insights to assess policies and technologies. The subject of this article provides precisely that—informative, factual, and well-documented perspectives that challenge conventional thinking in a profession that often lacks critical contrarian viewpoints. Moreover, the article details the technology and services offered by Lokad, a company making meaningful contributions to supply chain optimization. Its removal would be an immeasurable disservice to Wikipedia’s mission of providing the public with diverse, verifiable knowledge. Eliminating such content undermines Wikipedia’s role as an open repository of expertise and thought leadership. Milos Vrzic – M4st8rYodA (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: M4st8rYodA's only edit is to this AFD, and the account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Correct. I have left my name so feel free to get in touch if you wish to verify that I am a secondary source. M4st8rYodA (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. Please see the note at the top of this page. It doesn't matter if someone created 500 accounts and all "voted" (it's not a vote) keep. It would have no impact whatsoever. This is a consensus building discussion, not a vote. Also, please see WP:SECONDARY. You are not a source. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing admin, please take account of several notes left for you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NORG. Not enough deep sources to prove notability.Nyasalones (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The sources above are very trivial mentions... This [98] is a discussion of their software in a journal article from Iran. I suppose many small sources are enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Le Monde piece above has about a paragraph on the company, with a quote from the CEO. Meh, it's not perfect, but probably enough to confirm they exist, in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[99] is not a discussion of their software in a journal article. Lokad published some data of their sales and purchases on their website, and because of its detail this was used as a population to study a phenomenon. The only discussion of Lokad in the article is this: "شرکت لوکاد عرضهکننده تجهیزات مرتبط باحوزهی انفورماتیک است که کلیهی تأمینکنندگان آن تولیدکنندگان قطعات کامپیوتریمیباشد." which translates roughly as "Lokad is a company that offers equipment related to the field of informatics, with all of its suppliers being manufacturers of computer components." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The La Tribune and Le Monde sources and the Iranian one found by Oaktree b seem to be just enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. While it's WP:BASIC, the sources do exist, so I think it's only fair to keep the article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The article is promotional and fails NPOV. Spartathenian (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This AfD has pushed all my buttons. First, the obvious COI and the insistence (WALLOFTEXT) that we ignore policy and bend to the loud voices. Then there's the founder's red-linking himself, as if he is immanently to be notable by WP standards. Then, in editing, I decided to watch the video that was being used as a source, which is an interview with "Estelle Vermorel, cofounder of Lokad". The knowledgeable and articulate Mme Vermorel, however, is not mentioned in the WP article. This is both a master class in self-promotion but also in not accepting that you can't always get what you want. Lamona (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I appreciate Oaktree b's careful source analysis - he always does good work. Upon reading his analysis, my take is slightly different - Lokad is almost but not quite notable. Some of the "experts" whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to lobby for this spammy company should write papers covering Lokad's software and get them published in reputable peer-reviewed journals (none of that pay-to-play stuff). That or actually try to help us improve this project beyond their Lokad advocacy here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:47, 27 March 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 consensus among those familiar with our notability guidelines that the sources do not support an article. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to satisfy WP's GNG criteria for this hospital. See [100], [101], [102], [103]. AndySailz (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the new sources will be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Five out of six sources fail the WP:SIRS check. The only good source we have is this, but it focuses more on a victim than the subject. Article does not pass WP:NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are all reliable Satipem (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already have news citations Satipem (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete, although as these are news citations, they are reliable Satipem (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems like it has some potential but it is not ready for mainspace. Looks like a directory than an encyclopedic page. Can be improved in draft space before coming to mainspace. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

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

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to Moritoriko for creating this AFD. My intention had been to nominate both together, but they should be okay as separate AFDs. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 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 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page has very few sources that actually discuss it, and relies too heavily on primary sources. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kolesar, Bryan J. (2015). Beer Lover's Mid-Atlantic: Best Breweries, Brewpubs & Beer Bars. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-4930-0155-2. Retrieved 2025-03-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The forebearer to The Pour House, PJ Whelihan's dates back to 1983 and has a dozen locations, a "Wing Truck," and two arena locations in the family. This is the original location. Here, you'll find a similar (though not quite as intense as at The Pour House) focus on great beer and food. That means instead of multiple Cape Mays, Cartons, Dogfish Heads, Flying Fishes, and Kanes, you might find one or two. Oh, are we not spoiled around these parts? To wrap up your day on Haddon Avenue, if it's time for a meal to balance everything out, PJ's has you covered with lots of pub grub, of which the buffalo wings are a must, but so too are the eggplant fries with Bloody Mary dipping sauce, Alaskan amber fish-and-chips, and the Italian roast pork sandwich with long hots."
2. Hefler, Jan (2003-08-03). "His pubs are a hit: The small chain got its start in Pa". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Bob Platzer has been the blur in the background, dashing about while the patrons in his pubs relax with mugs of microbrew and heaping platefuls of spicy buffalo wings. Ten years ago, Platzer opened his first P.J. Whelihan's Pub in Allentown, naming it after his late Irish grandfather, a night editor at the now defunct New York Daily Mirror. ... Today, the Haddonfield, Camden County, resident has four P.J.s in South Jersey and three in Pennsylvania, including one in Blue Bell. He is set to open another in South Jersey this fall, an estimated $3.5 million pub in Medford Lakes, Burlington County. Although he declined to discuss the value of the business, it's clear from the multiplication of the pubs that he's hit on a successful formula. Folks like to hang out at P.J. Whelihan's Pubs. On a busy night, each pub might serve about 1,000 people, Platzer said. The pubs are known for friendly, spunky waitstaff, an assortment of beers on tap — 12, including one from Cherry Hill's Flying Fish Brewing Co. — and big-screen TVs around oversize bars. Born as a burger-and-wings place, the pubs recently added salads and seafood selections to the menu."
3. Wlazelek, Anne (1994-09-02). "My Favorite Place". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Driving from Fogelsville to Allentown each day, I was duly impressed by the transformation of the exterior of the former Halfway House bar and restaurant into P.J. Whelihan's Pub. ... Inside, diners can find an eclectic selection of food and decor. Besides the house specials of hot and spicy chicken wings, chicken cheesesteaks and pork barbecues, the Pub provides baskets of shrimp, burgers and fries, and "surf and turf" combinations of shrimp and steak. ... The interior appears to be a cross between a sports bar and a country inn. Photos of Babe Ruth and John Lennon hang on the walls. Dress is casual."
4. Klein, Michael (2017-01-05). "Pub chain P.J. Whelihan's got there, largely by winging it". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "In late 1983, Bob Platzer drove to Lehighton, in the Poconos, based on a lead about a restaurant for sale. "Before I left that day, I had bought a restaurant," he said. The restaurant, which he named after himself (Platz's), led to a second restaurant in Allentown that specialized in burgers, wings, and beer. This was the start of a pub empire in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that now includes 14 P.J. Whelihan's sports bars; three branches of Pour House, a beer specialist; the fine-dining restaurant Chophouse; and Treno Pizza Bar. Among its distinctions: P.J. Whelihan's provides the wings used in SportsRadio 94 WIP's Wing Bowl."
5. Henninger, Danya (2015-07-05). "P.J. Whelihan's quest for the perfect bar food menu: 'Could we be serving *better* nachos?'". Billy Penn. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "After starting in 1983 with a single location in Lehighton, PA, there are now 15 P.J. Whelihan’s locations across the Southeast PA / South Jersey region (though none in Philadelphia). The casual pub has built a reputation on a great selection of draft beer, but also — and perhaps even more — a menu of reliable, crowd-pleasing bar food. People who go to one location know that if they visit any of the others, they’ll get the same familiar burgers, apps and sandwiches."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow P.J. Whelihan's 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) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the available sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. All I can find, including the sourcing above, are advertorials regurgitating corporate spin or gushing food reviews from people who were invited to go "behind the scenes". Failure to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Half the references are primary from the company website. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:33, 30 March 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 rough consensus that the sources found do not offer the required SIGCOV. Kudos to Tryptofish for their honest and unbiased assessment of the sources they presented, and to Bearian for his disclosure. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Winery

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

This is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these sources: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:

The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.

The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.

Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.

Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.

Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:

But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.

Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.

To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.

By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.

Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.

Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.

Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.

I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.

The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.

Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.

I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There seems to be enough sourcing to justify a small article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:

- Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.

- Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: none of those 5 sources were news sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, @DotesConks.

My concern, based on this new data, and even with you excellently cleaning up the article to eliminate content that was PR copy taken directly from their website, is that the article will remain unable to be fleshed out into one that meet's Wikipedia standards. The current content of the article is a textbook example of exactly the type of article that should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR (not a directory) and WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient significant coverage beyond routine business reporting and PR). Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTDIR makes it clear that simple listings of businesses do not warrant standalone articles. The content of this article amounts to little more than, "There is a business called City Winery with locations in various cities," which is precisely the kind of business cataloging Wikipedia is not meant to host. If it had meaningful cultural or historical significance (which is difficult to achieve, considering that the business is quite new and thus would be difficult to be of "historical significance"), someone would have written about that instead of just listing its offered services, where it is, and who played there.

The available citations fail to provide substantive coverage of the subject, making it impossible to write a meaningful, encyclopedic article. Instead, as stated above, what exists is a short business listing and advertising PR, because that is all that can be written with the citations available.

Additionally, WP:GNG requires significant, independent, and sustained coverage in reliable sources. However, the sources provided do not offer substantial analysis of City Winery as a unique cultural or business entity in its own right. They are either brief mentions in the context of business listings, passing references in articles about other topics, or promotional content that does not contribute to notability. Without robust secondary sources that provide a deeper examination of the company’s history, influence, or unique contributions, there is no way to expand this article into something encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the fact that notable musicians have performed at City Winery locations does not make the venue itself notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is merely a standard business operations statement. It is a concert venue. People perform concerts there. Nothing noteworthy about that basic business function. This is the same flawed reasoning that has led to improper justifications for similar business-oriented articles in the past. A venue's significance must be demonstrated through independent third-party coverage that focuses on the venue itself, not simply by listing artists who have played there.

To clarify:

This is just a "this place exists" article. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion.

Wikipedia is not a business directory or a "document everything" database. It is an encyclopedia, and articles need to demonstrate why a subject matters in a broader historical, cultural, or societal context. Right now, the City Winery article lacks that context entirely.

The article contains: No cultural impact analysis; No historical significance; No indication that it changed or influenced anything; No evidence that it pioneered or defined a movement or trend.

Instead, the article reads like a glorified brochure or Yelp listing:

Here’s a business. Here are some locations. Here are some concerts that happened.

The current citations do not support the capacity for development of a substantial entry. If and when such coverage emerges, an article could be recreated with actual depth. At this stage, however, City Winery does not appear capable of even potentially meeting the threshold for inclusion, and deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop bludgeoning the discussion @Qinifer or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinifer, this page is ~29,000 bytes; of that, you have contributed nearly 20,000. That is not a demonstration of academic rigour. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:CA8:12E3:13D0:8A44 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we need to hear from more experienced AFD participants. If you've already made an argument, please give new voices some space to review sources with fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is a close one given the sources, but while there does seem to be some independent secondary sources, the widespread independent coverage in those sources is lacking based on a cursory search. If further evidence towards widespread coverage, it would be more convincing. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written is essentially a WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 04:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't feel comfortable !voting because I'm friends of friends with the owner (Manhattan being the smallest village in the world). I feel obligated to tell you that the son of the owner, Nick, who has used Sockpuppets, has heavily edited the article. The closing administrator must decide whether the sources, which do exist, are significant enough. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Two references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it really does read like a promotion and is not encyclopedic. Seems there is COI issues too on the owner’s page Michael Dorf. There are many venues for music in any city. We do not need to make article for these unless they really are significant. Ramos1990 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWBC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by seemingly WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability issues for years.

From what I can see ignoring press releases, the remaining coverage doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Routine stuff like hiring/firing news, reporting some acquisitions without further details , the company getting a rating or some non-notable award etc. There is some coverage on employment lawsuits but the focus is on the lawsuits rather than the company and per WP:ILLCON cannot be used to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 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 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems nothing special or well-covered. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:51, 23 March 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. ✗plicit 14:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cords Cable Industries Limited

(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. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:41, 8 March 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) 15:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an actual, real manufacturer of physical goods, there is likely notability. I see lots of potential news sources. Cf. Some of the other companies nominated by this nominator in one fell swoop. Bearian (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these news sources. I really appreciate it. After looking through them, I see they mainly cover stock prices and earnings reports which are WP:ROUTINE. None of them appear to align with WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : It's Indian public company. There are some more news coming up about it in Google news, mostly around it's stock performance.Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:15, 29 March 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. ✗plicit 14:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashiana Housing

(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. Apart from that, activities like fundraising, profit reporting, new real estate project launches, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:18, 8 March 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) 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, even taking Indian media with a grain of salt. I see pages of news articles on Google News about the company itself and its developments. The article needs updating and adding sources, but that's not the point of AfD. Bearian (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:50, 22 March 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!} 01:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER

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

This is an article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also returned a lot of hits on newspapers.com. When I started to read individual articles, however, they were on things that were not this company. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's "a particularly important company" then it should never have been proposed for deletion! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I would love for us to have a policy or guideline called "Chetsford said it's important", as of now my subjective belief of a person or thing's importance using personal criteria of importance, unfortunately, do not trump our standards to determine WP:N. Perhaps one day that will change. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this article has languished for years, what new sources have been found to establish notability now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. First, I found more relevant (but not independent) sources using "Analytic Services Inc". For some reason the title was changed from that (the actual organization name) to ANSER at some distant time. I can find many company announcements and, as they are essentially a gov't contractor, gov't documents that name award amounts. I do not find independent sources. They do military and intelligence contracting so it would be surprising to get independent articles about their work. The 3 sources currently listed cover only a fraction of the content of the article, and none are substantial. (The DIANE one is less than a full page.) Lamona (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sourcing for this corporation, Gnews, Newspapers, Journals... The sourcing now in the article isn't helping. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the available sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:38, 29 March 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. asilvering (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connect (insurance company)

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

No evidence of notability in the article, spam Polygnotus (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article really needs to be updated more for its current ownership rather than its previous Ameriprise ownership, and to mention more about how its used within AmFam (it's had a long time relationship with Costco for instance, which drives its members to use this provider specifically), and I don't forsee deletion here with the AmFam connection. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources in the article, the only ones with any pretensions to be independent sigcov are a profile of a a profile of a company exec in Response Magazine, a trad mag and Insurance Journal covering an acquisition. The name is unfortunately generic enough it's rather difficult to search for, even "Connect insurance" is overshaddowed by insurance connecting things and other similarly named platforms. There's an article on the sale of their ex-hq in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the local paper. WP:NCORP generally doesn't consider routine coverage of mergers to be sigcov, and the Response Magazine profile is focused on the person rather than the company, so this doesn't add up to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of names this insurer has had certainly makes for an adventurous search. Luckily, I've turned up all the needed articles including pretty regular SIGCOV in Green Bay. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside claims for SIGCOV, which references meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which are needed to meet criteria for establishing notability? I don't think any of them do... HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HighKing: [109], [110]. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sammi Brie: It is unsatisfactory to simply link to articles without explanation. I don't know why you believe those articles meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. For example, the Green Bay Gazette article is an advertorial, a puff piece, which relies entirely on an interview and information provided by the company, without any objective opinion, fails ORGIND. The second article is exactly the same, based on regurgitated company information and spin, also failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its parent, American Family Insurance. Seems on the edge notability wise and preferring an WP:ATD, especially per analysis by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Family Insurance as per WP:ATD and the suggestion above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. This is a clear No consensus but my instinct is to close this as a Merge. I need a stronger sign that this is what participants want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per analysis by Rusalkii does not apply any more and did not apply even then. At the time Rusalkii did the analysis, the article had 8 sources. At the time that JackFromWisconsin wrote that it had 20, as Sammi Brie had noted before. There's a prose history section back to 1979 now, that no longer falsely sources events in 2005 to a 2001 book (which had stood since 2013). Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It isn't about the number of sources, but the quality of the content. None of the sources contain content that meets CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND, most are advertorial with regurgitated company spin. Can you link to specific content in sources that meets our criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's about rationales that clearly weren't based upon even looking at the article as it stood at the time, and are obviously flawed. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep from me. This article has been dramatically improved since nomination and now clearly meets GNG/NCORP and whatever other requirements one could throw at it. Toadspike [Talk] 16:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been adequately cleaned up and improved by Sammi Brie per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:55, 31 March 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)

[Repubblica20190805-1] D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20180425-2] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20190307-3] Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[TechCrunch20240406-4] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[SCMedia20240409-5] Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20230830-6] "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20180516-7] "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[8] Stephen Sims, "The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation", DEF CON 32, 2024, [1]

[9] UAE’s EDGE advances cyber acquisition with Crowdfense and plans further expansion, Tactical Report, 2024, [2]

[10] Pierluigi Paganini, "Crowdfense launches $30M exploit acquisition program", Security Affairs, 2024, [3]

[11] EDGE Group punta ad acquisire Crowdfense per rafforzarsi nella cybersicurezza, Analisi Difesa, 2024, [4]

[12] Boom dei costi degli 0day, no-click su mobile: 9 milioni di euro sul listino Crowdfense, Red Hot Cyber, 2024, [5]

[13] Crowdfense: 0day broker rises acquisition price for 2024, Cybersecurity-Help.cz, 2024, [6]

[14] ICS zero-day exploit makes debut at Idaho cyber lab's S4, CyberScoop, 2024, [7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]