Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TCBT1CSI (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 4 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonawalla Fincorp.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Companies|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Companies. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


Companies deletion

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

The result was 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 14:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poonawalla Fincorp

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

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 such as name changes, appointments, fundraising, and business acquisitions are merely routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. WP:ATD - Cyrus S. Poonawalla. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:46, 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 redirect‎ to Marriott Hotels & Resorts. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Marriott Hotel

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

A non-notable chain hotel. If we're applying WP:NCORP to it, it fails since all the coverage of it is WP:ORGTRIV, press release-driven news about its opening. If we apply WP:NBUILDING, what's required is significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We don't have that for this. Searching for additional sources beyond the two in the article, which read like regurgitated press releases, I find only WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources that do not appear independent from the hotel ([8], [9], plus material that is over-the-top WP:PROMO like [10] and [11]) or hospitality industry WP:TRADES publications ([12]). What I don't see is anything that's explains why this Marriott is anything other than a WP:ROTM corporate hotel. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming Tree (café)

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

I propose the deletion of this article because it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I searched for sources using Google News, JSTOR, Naver News, and reliable Korean news databases. I could not find any in-depth, independent secondary coverage. The article mostly relies on trivial mentions and promotional sources. The cafe's concept may be interesting, but there is no evidence that it has received significant attention from reliable sources that are independent of the café. This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and notability. Therefore, I believe the article should be deleted. LookatmiWiki (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable South Korean café. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found these two news articles, but don't think it's enough. [13][14] seefooddiet (talk) 07:07, 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 keep‎ based on the majority of votes and discussion. (non-admin closure) Imwin567 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBreak

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

NewsBreak is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they do not have enough articles/news information about them to even expand the page further than it is now. There is nothing SIGNIFICANT about this; per Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, to determine if a topic merits its own article, it requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not self-published or promotional. And so far, this article is WP:UNDUE, ONE Rueters article covers an entire paragraph. No notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't you see? That article literally has local in it's opening paragraph! Well, I mean... You can see that. Everyone with vision can see that. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by how big of an area a news organization covers. We have hundreds of articles on daily newspapers that publish local news. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I found several secondary sources that span a good period after a brief search:
Plus Chinese-language articles from secondary sources:
Plus many reliable sources covering Reuters' June 5, 2024 article, which shows newsworthiness:
I don't see a problem with that paragraph citing just one source, considering 1) the source is Reuters, which is reliable, and 2) the article in question is an in-depth, long-form investigative piece. Iiii I I I (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's a company that doesn't seem to promote itself but there's information to be found. tedder (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well-known app, a lot of people use it. Also, demonstrated notability by the media coverage posted above. Furthermore, keeping this article serves the purpose of informing people that the app is owned by a Chinese company which is something they may want to know before installing it on their phone.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 13 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) Cinder painter (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElderTreks

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

The company is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a WP:BEFORE and found no sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nominator. The only sources I have found are articles on travel for older people that mention eldertreks as an option. No in-depth, significant coverage of the company
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree with you, the nominator. Also, per the reasons @Anonrfjwhuikdzz has said above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Zero secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. Could not find anything. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Vigolo, Vania (2017). "ElderTreks—Small-Group Exotic Adventures for the Over 50". Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 130–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47735-0. ISBN 978-3-319-47734-3. ISSN 2510-4993. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "ElderTreks is an adventure travel company designed exclusively for individuals aged 50 and over. It is based in Toronto, Canada, and was established in 1987 by Gary Murtagh. ElderTreks offers trips in over 100 countries and includes destinations in Africa, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific Region, Europe, the Middle East, and the Polar regions. Some of the travel proposals include, for example, wildlife and tribal African safaris, active hiking trips to the Rockies, Himalayas and Andes expeditions by icebreakers to the Arctic and Antarctic, and cultural journeys throughout Asia and South America. ElderTreks proposes small group experiences. For example, the maximum group size for land adventures is 16, and expedition ships rather than cruise ships are used for ship-based adventures. Smaller vessels allow for more personal interaction and reduce the impact at the sites visited. Before the establishment of ElderTreks, Gary Murtagh was running trips all over the world to exotic destinations and he realized that there was not a specific adventure travel company targeting the 50-plus market."

    2. Kruempelmann, Elizabeth (2002). The Global Citizen: A Guide to Creating an International Life and Career. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. p. 114. ISBN 1-58008-352-8. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Eldertreks is the world’s first adventure travel company for people over fifty. The goal of the program is to promote genuine, noncommercial encounters with local people and nature’s wonders. Locations include thirty-one destinations worldwide. ... All of Eldertreks’ trips involve some walking, in groups of fifteen people or less. You can choose a trip with activity ratings from easy to challenging, but you should be in fairly good shape. Accommodation levels are mostly mid-range hotels and high-end guest houses and inns — all charming, comfortable, and safe. Restaurants range from small, local eateries to elegant retreats."

    3. Warren, Isobel (1993). On the Go at 50 Plus. Toronto: Cedar Cave Publishing. pp. 93–94. ISBN 0-920403-06-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "One company that’s specializes in adventure travel for mature adults is ElderTreks and president Tov Mason, a mere lad of 33 but already a specialist in adventure trips for younger travellers, is fast becoming expert at creating adventures for their mature counterparts. ElderTreks, often led by Mason himself, have so far included trips to Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Borneo, the Galapagos Islands, Java and Sumatra, Belize, Costa Rica and Ecuador. But any one tour may accommodate travellers of differing physical abilities. For example, a recent jaunt to Indonesia saw about half of the group explore a gentle countryside at an equally gentle pace while the remainder of the group tackled dense jungles on foot and by canoe and spent the night in a native village."

    4. Hobbs, Pam; Algar, Michael (1994). Free to Travel: A Canadian Guide for the 50-Plus Travellers. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 162. ISBN 0-385-25479-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "ElderTreks of Toronto has the right idea with their “exotic adventures for the young at heart” tailored to fit 50 plus travellers. An example is their 21-day tour in Thailand: sightseeing in Bangkok and surrounds is followed by an overnight train ride to Chang Mai, with the week there highlighted by a bicycle trip into the countryside. From Chang Mai the group divides; some choose to go to the far north for three days; others opt to stay with the people living in the hills. The latter entails an elephant trek through the jungle and overnighting on bamboo floors of village houses. An experience of a lifetime for sure, but not for everyone, which is exactly why ElderTreks offers a less demanding alternative in the Golden Triangle. "

    5. Hegle, Kris Ann (2000). The Internet Made Easy for Seniors. Lincolnwood, Illinois: Publications International. pp. 122–123. ISBN 0-7853-4568-X. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "EIderTreks' Web site contains a lot of good information about trips geared a specifically toward the 50-or-older traveler. This company specializes in adventure travel. In other words, the trips you'll find at this site aren't designed for people who like to be pampered while on vacation. On Elder Treks' home page you'll see a post filled with signs to destinations such as Central Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, and Asia Minor and the Middle East. If you click on a sign destination, you'll link to a Web page that describes all of the trips that are currently offered in that region. You'll also find information about the cost, the length of stay, and where travelers will arrive and depart on each trip. Some trips give travelers the option of extending their stay."

    6. Heilman, Joan Rattner (1996) [1988]. Unbelievably Good Deals and Great Adventures That You Absolutely Can't Get Unless You're Over 50. Chicago: Contemporary Books. pp. 47–48. ISBN 0-8092-3233-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Not designed for those who prefer to view the world through bus windows or will sleep in five-star hotels only, ElderTreks is a program of off-the-beaten-track trips for people 50 and older (and younger companions) who are in reasonably good physical condition, capable of walking at a comfortable pace in tropical conditions. Featuring exotic adventures to relatively remote places in the world, it stresses cultural interaction, physical activity, and nature exploration. However, trekking routes are chosen with older hikers in mind and groups are limited to 15. Trekking portions of the trips are optional and you may choose to substitute a guesthouse-based itinerary."

    7. Merz Nordstrom, Nancy; Merz, Jon F. (2006). Learning Later-Living Greater: The Three Secrets for Making the Most of Your "After-50" Years. Boulder, Colorado: First Sentient Publications. pp. 170–171. ISBN 978-1-59181-047-6. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Nineteen-year-old ElderTreks is the world's first adventure travel company designed exclusively for people fifty and over; it provides exciting small-group activities on the land and sea in more than eighty countries. Excursions focus on adventure, indigenous cultures, and nature. Check out the wildlife in Tanzania, scour the Gobi Desert in Mongolia on a camel, witness the awesome spectacles of Angkor Wat in Thailand, and even visit the seventh continent of Antarctica. All of these adventures and more are possible when you travel with ElderTreks."

    8. Kaye, Evelyn (2001). Travel and Learn: 1001 Vacations Around the World. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Panda Publications. pp. 112–113. ISBN 1-929315-01-5. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Designed for adventure travelers of 50 and over, Eldertreks offers hiking and other active trips to dozens of exotic locations including Cuba, Morocco, Kenya, Tibet, Hungary, Turkey, India, Borneo, Vietnam, Brazil, Costa Rica, Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand."

    9. Shapiro, Michael (1997). Pizzo, Stephen (ed.). NetTravel: How Travelers Use the Internet. Sebastapol, California: Songline Studios and O'Reilly & Associates. p. 127. ISBN 1-56592-172-0. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Another site aimed at seniors is Toronto-based ElderTreks (http://www.eldertreks.com/), which specializes in adventures for people over 50. Travelers can use the site to learn about ElderTreks’ philosophy and tours. A link leads to information about ElderTreks’ tour leaders, which can help seniors feel more comfortable about the trip they are considering. ElderTreks uses the Net well to give a description of each trip, for example, a 16-day tour of Turkey. The description includes text, images, a map, a detailed itinerary, cost, and departure dates. If travelers still have questions about any tour, they can click ..."

    10. Vadnai, Noah; Smith, Julian (2000). Travel Planning Online for Dummies (2 ed.). Foster City, California: IDG Books. p. 58. ISBN 0-7645-0672-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "ElderTreks (www.eldertreks. com) is a Toronto-based travel agency that specializes in designing active vacations for people over 50. The site is extremely well designed and provides you with tons of tantalizing information about the trips they offer. Hiking in the Gobi Desert? Journeying through Irian Java? A far cry from shuffleboard aboard the Pacific Princess — that's the point."

    11. Landes, Michael (2000). The Back Door Guide to Short-Term Job Adventures. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. pp. 237–238. ISBN 1-58008-147-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Assuring "exotic adventures for the young at heart," ElderTreks offers off-the-beaten-path cultural experiences to destinations such as Sumatra, Bali, Thailand, and Morocco. The two to three-week trips are geared for travelers who want to really explore and experience a country, from strolling through street markets and cycling through a tropical countryside to the human encounter of sharing dinner with a local family in their home. Nature is a key element to all itineries."

    12. Tsutsumi, Cheryl Chee (2006-09-28). "Exploring the wild side: Toronto-based ElderTreks offers more than five dozen exotic trips for the active older traveler" (pages 1 and 2). Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Passages Exotic Expeditions, ElderTreks' parent company, was founded in 1987 *when adventure travel was just in its infancy," according to sales manager Christine Bossence. After five years of catering to all ages, executives noticed there was a big demand from mature travelers seeking active vacations in far-flung destinations without hassles such as arranging for local transportation and accommodations on the spot. Thus, Elder Treks was born as a division of Passages Exotic Expeditions in 1992. It now offers over five dozen adventures in 90 countries, including Libya, Morocco, Madagascar, Hungary/Roma-nia, Sri Lanka, India, Myan-mar, Borneo and Bhutan. Available next year are new programs to Malta, Egypt, Iceland, Papua New Guinea, Belize/Tikal and the Czech Republic/Slovakia/Poland."

    13. Catto, Susan (2002-12-15). "Practical Traveler; Older Travelers Hit the Road". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

      The article notes: "Now in its 17th year, ElderTreks offers land and marine adventures on five continents. Tours are limited to 16 people (some of the boat trips are larger or smaller). [quote] The 21-day Cultural West Africa trip loops through Mali and Burkina Faso, with a safari on the Niger River and a trip to Timbuktu"

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though these are reliable sources, most of them read like they are merely mentioning the company and its product listings, i.e. adventure travel for 50+ adults. There is not much in the way of commentary here, and to me these read more as examples of WP:OrgTRIV rather than WP:SUBSTANTIAL. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this assessment of the sources. ElderTreks is profiled on pages 130–136 of the academic book Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools published by Springer International Publishing. As this book review from the Journal of the Association for Anthropology & Gerontology notes:

In the third part, the researcher discusses so-called case studies illustrating various strategies adopted in the tourism industry, on the basis of specific examples. The subject of the analysis comprised three tourism firms: (I) Viaggi Floreali (Slovenia), specialising in tourism for small groups of seniors; (II) ElderTreks (Canada), specialising in tourism for individual seniors; (III) Algarve Senior Living (Great Britain), specialising in the rental of tourist facilities. The qualitative research carried out by Vigolo is based on the following methodology: (1) determination of how the company began to target older people; (2) description of the target and its characteristics; (3) description of the company’s distinctive elements; (4) description of the marketing mix (product, price, place, and promotion strategies); (5) analysis of the market context, with a focus on active aging and on challenges for the tourism industry (Vigolo 2017, 129).

Kruempelmann 2002 provides 277 words of coverage about how the company's travel itineraries work. Isobel Warren's book provides 208 words of coverage. Pam Hobbs's book provides 282 words of coverage. The books provides the authors' commentary about what they think about the company's travel itineraries. None of these sources are trivial coverage. The sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Cunard (talk) 21:01, 6 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) 08:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per sources provided. It would be nice if someone added some of them to the article - but that's not an issue for AFD. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed with this bizarre AfD where we all seem to want to pass the buck about actually adding those sources, but still agreed that is not the job of the AfD. After those copious volume of sources were provided (though not added) this article should not be deleted, though someone please (I call not it!) should add them to the article in a constructive manner. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 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. The keep !votes are too weak to overcome the basic objections that there is insufficient coverage that is both in-depth and independent. asilvering (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Any luck? Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have added sources and info from digitised newspapers (and a bit more info from the existing sources). A Google Books search shows that there is also some coverage in computer magazines, which I have not (yet) included - I will try to include this one [16] at least (though IT is really outside my areas of expertise or interest). I think there is just enough significant coverage for it to meet WP:NCORP (including the ISP Planet article - its age and the fact that the publication no longer exists are irrelevant.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in the hopes of finding more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it took some time to reseaech and yes, there is no significant coverage but it is notable. Some sources I found while searching for the topic - an old article with a mention - [17], this news article-[18], a public record- [19], and this magazine coverage too- [20]. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these pass muster. The first one is a name check in an article about other companies: more than 100 Internet service provider and enterprise customers, including Cisco Systems csco , Concentric Network cncx , Epoch Networks, Oracle orcl , PeopleSoft. The public record doesn't show notability, only that the company exists (presumably all companies get such a record). The other two are that 1) they raised money and 2) they were acquired. These latter are "routine business announcements." This is covered in WP:NCORP under the section WP:CORPTRIV. There it lists "raised capital", and "sales, mergers, acquisition" as examples of standard notices that do not support NCORP. Lamona (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about that. Again the subject is notable but not having significant coverage (reliable and secondary, yes, but not much). The question is, does it hold some time based significance, yes.[21][22] about founder with a mention to the subject - Scott Purcell is a serial entrepreneur experienced in securities, banking, technology, internet infrastructure, publishing, social networking and music industry. He is best known for founding Epoch Networks, one of the first internet providers in the United States [23] one line mention- and Epoch Networks (the nation's largest privately held ISP at the time).[24][25][26]. Might not meet much criterias and it does have time based significance but not significant coverage which totally depends upon pov of the user WP:POPULARITY.HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:02, 29 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 Speedy deleted as blatant hoax‎. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles

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

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my life depends on this article staying i will suffer if you delete google giggles wikipedia page 89.64.44.164 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: topic of discussion with significant coverage in several WP:RS, meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Lordralf (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No 208.75.175.44 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this is notable enough online to keep. Especially as long as short form content platforms exist online. Limedin32 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment - would like to note these keep votes are mostly new users with less than 10 edits. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. This is a confirmed hoax, most of the sources have nothing to do with the purported subject and the few that do not, at a glance, provide the overwhelming SIGCOV I'd need to see to convince me that keeping this mess of an article is worth it. In essence a TNT, I guess. Toadspike [Talk] 20:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    dont you DARE say that again about my google giggles. This articles death will mean a failing for the good people of wikipedia Slivcommique (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not quite a hoax, but as a meme it doesn't actually have any secondary coverage that I can see. (KnowYourMeme isn't a reliable source.) It's certainly not any kind of Google product. The sources seem to have been generated by searching for "Google" and "giggles" and while you can find plenty of funny headlines related to the Queen or the Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson movie about Google, there's nothing here beyond a KYM page, a random French podcast, and a now-defunct webpage (almost certainly taken down as a copyright infringement on Google) created by a globally blacklisted viral marketing agency (media-bb-dot-com, which I can't even link in this !vote). Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My source analysis came to the same conclusions as yours, thanks for the more detailed explanation. This is only a "hoax" in the real-world sense, in that there isn't actually a product with this name. It is not a "hoax" in the Wikipedia sense, since there actually is a meme-hoax that could potentially be notable (but isn't). Toadspike [Talk] 14:12, 18 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. On balance, the arguments for deletion are considerably stronger than those for retention. However, I do not see a consensus here. And with no added views after my last relist, I see little point in dragging this on for another week. Feel free to renominate in two months. Owen× ☎ 14:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.
The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:05, 19 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 redirect‎ to List of banks in Nigeria. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globus Bank

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

no reliable sources (NCORP), routine or affiliate sources only. Unicorbia (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has zero in-depth information about the bank. The article regurgitates comments from somebody who used to work there and denies hacking allegations. HighKing++ 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND.
  • This references the aforementioned hacking allegations, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This is a regurgitated company announcement about relocating their HQ. Fails ORGIND.
  • Finally, this contains regurgitated allegations against the bank by the other party, contains no independent content nor in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 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, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CreditWise Capital

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

Founding, partnership and other routine media references with no reliable multiple significant sourcing Unicorbia (talk) 12:14, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project (San Francisco)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, suggesting it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First @Xrimonciam needs to ensure WP:BEFORE is followed, and they have presented no evidence that it was.
Second: there are three articles DEDICATED to the organization, two of which are in quite reputable sources that have national reach (SF Chronicle and SF Standard) and one of which covers the organization's white-paper release in a local publication (48hills). Iknowyoureadog (talk) 22:19, 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 keep‎. No support for deletion beyond the nominator, whose assessment of the NYT, Boston Globe and other sources was unconvincing to multiple AfD regulars. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR and routine business news. scope_creepTalk 19:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I would prefer to stay out of the below issue of questionable sourcing. But it should be noted that article creator User:Bubblegum111 is a student editor at Northeastern University, and was supervised by a Peer counselor on the project. One of the peer review items is a section on "Sources and References, Guiding questions." While there does not seem to be any details on that last one, I'm willing to assume good faith on both that editor and their process. However, an editor below seems to think the sourcing was promotional. I prefer to assume good faith that both a university student and supervisor in the same city as the business would know what is planted hype and what is not. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I rely on long experience of bad decisions made by Wikied folk that resulted in their articles being to sent to Afd. This article is a highly promotional advert that breaks the Terms of Use, on a business, where all the information is straight from the CEO. Not from any journalistic process or discovery. Its mostly verbatim from press-releases and the company website and hearsay. scope_creepTalk 08:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are PR and advert or press-releases. There is no reference 7. Ref 6 is a funding round which fails WP:SIRS. The NY article is a clear interview with the CEO as PR. It fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND, as well. scope_creepTalk
  • Comment The core of it is that your so used to seeing this crap paid-for journalism, that you think once it appears in NY Times then it somehow valid. Its not. It paid-for advert. The business is too new to be really notable with associated secondary sources. The fact the guy has paid $40k-$60k for the written up story/advert, which is 2021 rate (don't know what it is now) seems to be not worth thinking about. The Entrepreneur is exactly the same. A paid-for advert. scope_creepTalk 14:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think the NYT wrote paid adverts. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look for the advertisements costings website. scope_creepTalk 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the student's instructor and tend to be an inclusionist. That isn't to say the article couldn't be improved, but I think it is a good start and additional sources will continue to be published as the company continues to expand. - Reagle (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly clear keep -- article is well-sourced to several reliable sources. The rationale for this proposal seems to be that the NYTimes coverage is paid-for, with no clear evidence of that? Unless there is clear proof all the sources used in this article were paid for by the business, it seems worth keeping. Even if the NYTimes article was paid for, to be honest it's likely not false, given that it's the NYT. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationalising it and not looking at the evidence. scope_creepTalk 08:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the article so heavily promotional and biased, almost as though its been purposly designed. Its a brochure advertisement plain and simple. Does it say anywhere when you come on to Wikipedia that its an advertising platform? When I signed up for Wikipedia, did I expect to see 100% content company sources and words taken directly from the words spoken from the company ceo and copied verbatim. I find it really odd that the editor who wrote this doesn't understand the process or the policies their writing under. scope_creepTalk 06:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the rationale at User:Reagle/proposed topics#Candidate Topic #1: PopUp Bagels sounds breathlessly promotional. scope_creepTalk 06:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a pretty clear pass of WP:NCORP, the NYT and Boston Globe articles are not paid advertisements, just significant food reviews of new popular restaurants. That's 2 right there. I don't know enough about the Nation's Restaurant News website to make a judgement on it for establishing notability. This is a student newspaper but I think it is still useful as it doesn't have any quotes by the founder and is clearly not paid advertising either.
I took a look at the article when you tagged it and that version was quite promotional, but it is a very different article now. Moritoriko (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone. I am the editor/creator of this article, and I wanted to chime in. As a Wikipedia novice, the process of drafting, creating, and revising an article has been daunting. Thank you to those who have contributed to this discussion, I appreciate all of your feedback! Like my professor @Reagle said, I know this article has been docked for its promotional tone, and I have been working hard to edit my sources and work so it can align with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I frequently posted in the Teahouse for counsel, and received a lot of valuable help. As this is an upcoming business, I understand that there are not as many notable sources as existing restaurant chains. However, I can assure that this was written in good faith, and I am committed to continuing to improve my work.
Bubblegum111 (talk) 13:48, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier VM

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

This looks more like a promotional write-up than a properly sourced article. None of the cited sources actually establish notability. The first reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature and not independent. The second doesn't really go into detail about the subject. The rest are either trivial mentions, SEO-driven, or just routine business updates. A thorough search brings up nothing substantial just the usual PR and business announcements. Junbeesh (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of the cited sources indicates that the article is supported by reliable and independent references, underscoring the brand’s international relevance. It presents a prominent Italian jewelry brand characterized by extensive media coverage. Lauradeffe (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Atelier VM is an Italian jewelry brand founded in 1998 with continuous activity for over 25 years. It has received coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

The article has been improved with additional context and sources during the AfD discussion. The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:CORP for notability, with reliable third-party coverage and relevance in the contemporary fashion and design scene. --Kaffa23 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaffa23 Looking at the sources, the first reference is just a listicle or a curated roundup of fashion updates. Listicles are usually brief and surface-level, so they don't really contribute to notability. The second reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature, meaning it's not independent. The third is just a basic product launch announcement, and the fourth is another article covering the same launch. There's nothing here that establishes notability in a meaningful way. Junbeesh (talk) 13:33, 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 speedy keep‎. Reliable source found (non-admin closure) Best Regards (CP) 21:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Communications (publisher)

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

fails GNG TzarN64 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it fail GNG? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 21:12, 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 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 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Market Adventures

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filevine

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

Promotional article for a non-notable private company. The sources are limited to: the organization's own website and press releases; sponsored content; trivial mentions; or WP:ORGTRIV like capital raises. Nothing else found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of independent coverage. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 03:03, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electroimpact

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

Does not have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is some local press from the Everett Herald but nothing that appears worthy of notice outside of the Seattle area with the exception of limited press about a civil rights settlement. I started a WP:HEY but don't want to continue based on notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Electroimpact has received significant coverage in the Seattle times, a good portion of it before the racism from the CEO. They are a major supplier for Boeing, which has been noted in news sources. Not sure if there are specific guidelines on size of area to be considered notable, but the greater Seattle area is plenty large with about 4 million people in it. Even if it's just that area that's interest, >1% of the US population is still quite a few people. I do think the article could be improved with sources about more than the CEO being racist.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your !vote. Hoping to get some clarification on your reasoning for keep. I realize it can be difficult for experienced users to navigate WP:NCORP, let alone someone new to editing such pages. There is no guideline about size of area. It doesn't matter how many people there are in Seattle. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless on the size of the city. That being said, the sources are still mainly local. We can sometimes use regional sources but there aren't any here that come close to WP:ORGCRIT that are outside of the area. You also state that it can be improved by using other sources. If you can provide those sources I would be happy to take a look as the page would need extensive cleanup for NPOV should it be kept. Regarding the comment about the CEO, be careful about naming someone. There is a lot that can be deduced about the subject from the sources, but it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to label that person as such unless it is widely published in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources about what the company does, here are several. I don't have time to write much right now, but I'll try to update the article when I have the chance. These are still mainly Seattle Times articles, but I believe they meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NCORP. The coverage of anti-Muslim discrimination is also, unfortunately, notable given its in-depth coverage in the Seattle times + its less detailed coverage nationally.
I do think that we should be leaning toward WP:PRESERVE for this article, hence my vote for keep, given the sources available about company culture and the company's importance in airplane manufacture in particular. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:58, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Virtual Storage Personal Computing

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

Non-notable IBM service. Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any sources about it expect one small 40-year old German article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu Golden Apple Child Education

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

I can't find any information about this company. The only company with a similar name I found was not founded in 1985. I'm not sure if it exists, and there are no references to this entry. Babaibiaobin (talk) 07:14, 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 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, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lhoist group

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content is too short to provide notability Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 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 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 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Pharma

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

I recommend the deletion of the MIdas Pharma page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the pharmacy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikhani Group of Companies

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are not reliable and independent. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed content from prior to semi-protection.
Keep This is does not make any sense. There are sources listed above and the page had sources and add on's that it seems others are deleting. does being a buissnessman & constable in the us not make a person notable. wow 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has many reliable sources in it. i have seen wikipedia articles with less than 4 unreliable sources and you guys didnt delete them. this article is about a company owned by a notable person named ali sheikhani. Ahmadalir (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is notable & falls under the criteria of notability WP:N Davidmathew11123 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources look notable to me. sources like news channels are notable like these https://katychristianmagazine.com/2023/12/06/meet-police-officer-and-self-made-businessman-ali-sheikhani-republican-candidate-for-fort-bend-county-constable-pct-3/ https://uspto.report/TM/98158126/FTK20230830173009/ there are a lot more sources that are reliable and notable so this article shouldn't be deleted. Mrbeast221 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable and independent. Janghirbutt (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace: Brother instead can someone it to a draft so i will work on it and then submit it for afc draft. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article shouldn’t be deleted as it has some reliable sources instead it should get the tag of more citations needed. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F953:498E:34F9:B100 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has a few Reliable Sources. Article can rely on those sources. shouldn’t get deleted instead get a tag about needing more citations. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:9:9C:6201:76B0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable citations shouldn’t get deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:441:F5D2:FB86:14FC (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look independent and reliable. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:856C:CC4D:E3C6:CFB9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article Falls under notability it shouldn’t be deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F4C7:2A79:AC6D:4C0A (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has independent and reliable sources . Falls under notability WP:NCORP 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying my best to improve it. i dont know what the decision would be but i will try my best thanks, 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although they are "hatted", it seems problematic to discount 13 editors arguing to Keep or Draftify in favor of 2 editors advocating Deletion. Is there any indications all of these IPs are socks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Yes, all of these are sock accounts and have been blocked. See the SPI for details. GrabUp - Talk 06:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well now that the sock farm has been purged, after review, allow me to add my determination of a Delete !vote to the roster here. Only routine coverage does not meet GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 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 14:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Inc.

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

Brand-new startup, spun off from Rivian Automotive just two days ago. All coverage is just about Rivian announcing the spinoff. No sign it meets WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Better off as a section in Rivian Automotive for now. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Junbeesh. Thus far the information available that I can find is simply an announcement of a spin off. For now, sources read like coverage of an event with little detailed information about Also, Inc which makes sense given there is little info beyond its focus on electric "micromobility". A (sub)section under Rivian would be enough for now.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aisera

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Amigao (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I respectfully disagree with the recent delete votes labeling the sources as unreliable or "startup hype pieces." The updated Aisera article cites independent, reliable sources per WP:RS, including TechCrunch on $50M (2020) and $90M (2022) funding ([39], [40]), Business Insider on its AI solutions ([41]), Forbes on RPA innovation ([42]), and VentureBeat on $40M funding (2021) and Microsoft AI integration (2023) ([43], [44]). These outlets have editorial oversight and provide significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV)—e.g., funding details, technology analysis, and partnerships—not mere hype. The IDC MarketScape (2023) ([45]) and Forrester Wave (Q4 2022) ([46]) are independent analyst reports, often accepted for notability reports in the AI space, reflecting industry recognition. Spanning 2020-2024, this coverage shows sustained attention beyond routine mentions. Could Brandon and Unicorbia clarify which sources fail WP:RS or lack depth, and why? I believe this meets WP:NCORP for retention. Bob Mashouf (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about VC rounds are "routine fundraising events" and fall under WP:CORPTRIV, TechCrunch publishes such article for essentially every raise in the Valley. The Forbes article is WP:FORBESCON. The IDC award is sourced to a press release and has no secondary coverage. Analyst reports are hardly independent given how they are produced and are not regularly used to establish notability on Wikipedia. How many of the companies in the Forrester report have articles? Brandon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the article has been updated with additional sources, concerns remain regarding whether they meet the criteria for establishing notability under WP:NCORP. Arguments have been made that the funding announcements from TechCrunch are routine (WP:CORPTRIV), the Forbes article may not meet WP:RS standards (WP:FORBESCON), and the IDC award is sourced to a press release. The reliance on analyst reports for establishing notability is also being questioned. Therefore, despite the company's existence and funding, the current sourcing does not convincingly demonstrate the significant coverage in independent and reliable sources required for a Wikipedia article.Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks for the feedback; I’ll clarify based on the sources. The TechCrunch 2022 article ([47]) details Aisera’s $90M Series D, noting its AI platform “auto-resolves customer service, IT, sales, and operations problems,” not just funding totals, countering WP:CORPTRIV. The Forbes article ([48]) by a staff writer, not WP:FORBESCON, covers Aisera’s Conversational RPA vision. The IDC MarketScape ([49][50]) names Aisera a leader in conversational AI, showing industry recognition. Forrester’s Wave ([51]) ranks Aisera among top vendors—e.g., Drift has a page. VentureBeat ([52], [53]) provides tech and partnership coverage. Spanning 2020-2024, this meets WP:NCORP with independent, significant sources. Can critics specify which lack depth or reliability? Open to edits. Bob Mashouf (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC) - striked double vote - Hmr (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is overtly authored by Tom Taulli, a "former contributor" and has the Forbes contributor disclaimer at the top of the article. At this point I have to ask, are you affiliated with Aisera? Brandon (talk) 15:50, 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 23:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bus

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict talk! 22:58, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RodBez

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

Fails WP:NCORP as the sources only provide trivial coverage, primarily comprising recycled press releases and fundraising notices. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GALAX

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

Reconrabbit prodded with the rationale, "Does not meet WP:NCORP; organization has not received substantial, independent coverage in its 30+ years of existence that I could find. Most sources are press releases or are covering Nvidia more than this group (which may get passing mention), and searching brings up a location in Virigina.", which is precisely what my searches turned up as well. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Wen, Zhao 闻钊 (2008-05-19). "9600GT显卡深度超频" [9600GT graphics card deep overclocking]. China Computer Education (in Chinese).

      The review notes: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner软件由影驰自主研发，并随该厂的GeForce 9600GT HDMI显卡附送，暂时只适用于该显卡。打开软件的控制面板，大家会发现其界面与其他厂商的显卡超频软件颇为相似，主要提供Shader频率、图形核心频率及显存频率调整功能，前两者还可设置为非同步模式进行调整，而且幅度极大。"

      From Google Translate: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner software is independently developed by Galaxy and comes with the GeForce 9600GT HDMI graphics card of the factory. It is only applicable to this graphics card for the time being. Open the control panel of the software, you will find that its interface is quite similar to other manufacturers' graphics card overclocking software, mainly providing shader frequency, graphics core frequency and video memory frequency adjustment functions. The first two can also be set to asynchronous mode for adjustment, and the amplitude is very large."

      The article notes: "根据笔者个人所作测试来看，在默认模式中把图形核心和内存频率提高，并把Shader频率设置为与核心频率同步，而风扇供电则保持为“Auto”模式。测试结果发现，预设频率为650/1800MHz的影驰9600GT显卡的最高图形核心超频能力为777MHz，显存则可超频到2266MHz，3DMark06测试得分由11382分提高到11715分，性能增幅为2.9%。"

      From Google Translate: "According to the author's personal test, the graphics core and memory frequencies are increased in the default mode, and the Shader frequency is set to synchronize with the core frequency, while the fan power supply remains in "Auto" mode. The test results show that the maximum graphics core overclocking capability of the Galaxy 9600GT graphics card with a preset frequency of 650/1800MHz is 777MHz, and the video memory can be overclocked to 2266MHz. The 3DMark06 test score increased from 11382 points to 11715 points, and the performance increase was 2.9%."

    2. "回眸09显卡风云 年度十大精品显卡全程回顾" [Looking back at the graphics card industry in 2009, a full review of the top ten graphics cards of the year] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-12-15.

      The article notes: "影驰9600GT中将版显卡采用了非公版PCB设计，使用了全封闭式电感搭配日本化工固态电容，整体做工扎实，用料非常不错。... 踏入2009年，首先值得我们记忆的就有影驰9600GT中将，这款显卡在08年的12月初就以699元的低价示人，这款显卡拥有强劲的供电配置、相当有个性的散热系统，加上默认高频以及低廉的售价，在09年的市场上就率先火了一把!以笔者的记忆，当时可谓受到众多的DIYer关注，几乎全国都出现有价无货的场面。而影驰9600GT中将在2009年的率先获得成功，除了产品的质量之外，很大程度上也要多得影驰市场运营上的成熟，与对消费者消费独到理解。而笔者认为影驰9600GT中将如果失去了一群出色的市场营销人员，那么它的确会失色不少。"

      From Google Translate: "The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition graphics card uses a non-public version PCB design, uses a fully enclosed inductor with a Japanese chemical solid capacitor, and has a solid overall workmanship and very good materials. ... Entering 2009, the first thing worth remembering is the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition. This graphics card was shown at the beginning of December 2008 at a low price of 699 yuan. This graphics card has a strong power supply configuration, a very unique cooling system, a default high frequency and a low price. It was the first to become popular in the market in 2009! As far as I remember, it attracted the attention of many DIYers at that time, and there was a situation of being out of stock almost all over the country. The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition was the first to succeed in 2009. In addition to the quality of the product, it was also largely due to the maturity of GALAX's market operations and its unique understanding of consumer consumption. And the author believes that if the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition lost a group of outstanding marketing personnel, it would indeed lose a lot of color."

    3. "追求最高性价比 超值中高端显卡推荐" [Pursuing the highest cost-effectiveness, high-end graphics cards recommended] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-08-03.

      The review notes: "影驰的显卡性价比一项很不错，特别是近期热卖的GTS250骨灰上将版，上市价为899元，而且还送NV原装键盘，有着738/2200MHz的核心显存频率，性价比非常好。影驰 GTS250骨灰上将版其核心采用55nm制程工艺，拥有128个流处理器，支持Phsyx物理引擎、CUDA并行运算，可以为游戏玩家提供更真实的游戏体验，性能相当强劲。制程工艺的提高，意味着产品成本的降低与功耗、发热量的降低，这无疑使得产品性价比更高了。"

      From Google Translate: "GALAX graphics cards have a very good price-performance ratio, especially the GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition, which is popular recently. The listing price is 899 yuan, and it also comes with an NV original keyboard. It has a core memory frequency of 738/2200MHz, which is very cost-effective. The GALAX GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition uses a 55nm process technology, has 128 stream processors, supports Phsyx physics engine and CUDA parallel computing, and can provide gamers with a more realistic gaming experience. The performance is quite strong. The improvement of the process technology means the reduction of product costs and power consumption and heat generation, which undoubtedly makes the product more cost-effective."

    4. "影驰9600GT中将版" [GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition]. 电脑商情报 [Computer Business Information] (in Chinese). 2008-08-05. ISSN 1003-9082.

      The review notes: "影驰9600GT中将版采用独特的非公版设计，PCB颜色沿用了影驰出道以来管用的深蓝色。影驰这款中将版Geforce9600GT并没有因为使用非公版而降低产品规格，无论在产品PCB设计还是用料做工上都不亚于公版产品。影驰9600GT中将版采用台积电(TSMC)使用65nm工艺设计的G94-300-A1核心，其拥有5.5亿晶体管和64个流处理器及12个光栅处理器，默认核心、Shader频率分别为公版的650MHz/1625MHz。"

      From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition adopts a unique non-public version design, and the PCB color continues to use the dark blue that has been used since GALAX debuted. GALAX's Lieutenant Edition Geforce9600GT has not lowered its product specifications due to the use of a non-public version. Both the product PCB design and the materials and workmanship are no less than the public version. GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition uses the G94-300-A1 core designed by TSMC using a 65nm process. It has 550 million transistors, 64 stream processors and 12 raster processors. The default core and shader frequencies are 650MHz/1625MHz of the public version."

    5. Sun, Shangwei 孙尚伟 (2008-05-28). "影驰9600gso 龙骨散热的魅力" [The charm of the GALAX 9600GSO keel cooling]. Beijing Times (in Chinese).

      The review notes: "影驰　９６００ｇｓｏ中将版是影驰将官军衔系列中比较热门的一款，采用三星１．２ｎｓ　ｇｄｄｒ３颗粒，容量３８４ｍｂ，实现５７５╱１６００ｍｈｚ的默认频率。它沿用了影驰８８００系列时代起采用的经典非公版ｐｃｂ，供电设计更加安全。来自酷冷的龙骨风格热管散热器有着比公版更高的散热效率和更低的噪音水平，是这款显卡最大的看点所在。　　"

      From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GSO Lieutenant General Edition is a popular model in the GALAX general rank series. It uses Samsung 1.2NS GDDRR3 particles, 384MB capacity, and achieves a default frequency of 575/1600MHz. It uses the classic non-public version PCB adopted by GALAX 8800 series, and the power supply design is safer. The keel style heat pipe radiator from Cool Cool has higher heat dissipation efficiency and lower noise level than the public version, which is the biggest highlight of this graphics card."

    6. "林世強博士 奮發創建電競品牌 專注自強熱心公益" [Dr. Lin Shiqiang works hard to create an e-sports brand, focusing on self-improvement and being enthusiastic about charity]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-08-26. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.

      The article notes: "經歷了屢敗屢戰的艱苦磨礪，林世強博士終於找到事業發展的新契機。2000年，影馳攜手全球電腦顯卡芯片製造龍頭公司NVIDIA，拓展電腦顯卡市場，影馳並且正式成為NVIDIA的核心夥伴。及至2003年，林世強博士正式推出全球市場戰略，他以創新科研為自主品牌的核心，以遊戲玩家為重心推行中高端發展路線，以「專注、多元、創新、重質」為經營理念，目前公司擁有齊全的產品線，除了主要的顯示卡外，還有固態硬碟、記憶體、主機板與鍵盤等，在業內取得良好口碑，每年逾數百萬件顯卡及電腦配件產品，遠銷至世界各地，包括東南亞、歐洲、南美洲、南非等地。"

      From Google Translate: "After experiencing the hardships of repeated failures, Dr. Lin Shiqiang finally found a new opportunity for career development. In 2000, GALAX joined hands with NVIDIA, the world's leading computer graphics card chip manufacturer, to expand the computer graphics card market, and GALAX officially became NVIDIA's core partner. In 2003, Dr. Lin Shiqiang officially launched the global market strategy. He took innovative scientific research as the core of the independent brand, promoted the mid-to-high-end development route with gamers as the focus, and took "focus, diversity, innovation, and quality" as the business philosophy. The company currently has a complete product line. In addition to the main graphics cards, there are also solid-state drives, memory, motherboards and keyboards, etc., and has gained a good reputation in the industry. Every year, more than millions of graphics cards and computer accessories are sold all over the world, including Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, South Africa and other places."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GALAX (simplified Chinese: 影驰; traditional Chinese: 影馳) 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) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That all seems fairly convincing. I obviously didn't find any of these, not even on other language Wikipedia articles for the subject. If incorporated into the article it would make a good case for renoving the maintenance tenplates present. Reconrabbit 22:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:28, 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. ✗plicit 10:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX

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

Contested draftification: non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. [57] and [58] are likely paid sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:02, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Entertainment

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

Same rationale as before, which was closed as a soft delete. The sources are not independent but consist mostly of press releases or passing mentions in routine announcements. Sources that discuss the subject are either unreliable or not independent, ultimately failing the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, Tamil Nadu, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – The article now cites multiple **independent and reliable sources** that offer **significant coverage** of Ahimsa Entertainment. These include:
      • Independent coverage**:
    - Style Vanity – a feature article, not a press release. - International Business Times – a mainstream news outlet covering the company's growing presence in overseas markets. - Chennai Vision – reports on the company’s direct involvement in international box office records. - CinemaSpice – regional film news platform covering their strategic distribution role.
    These go **beyond trivial mentions** and highlight the company's significance in the Indian overseas film market. Furthermore, Ahimsa Entertainment has handled global distribution for high-profile films like Leo, Varisu, Beast, and Vendhu Thanindhathu Kaadu — all commercial blockbusters with international reach. This establishes its notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG.
    Happy to work further on improving sourcing and neutrality, but this company clearly passes notability standards. — ~~~~ Nathan2711 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Style Vanity, as described on its website, evolved from a personal blog to a beauty website focusing on Asian Beauty, tackling skin concerns, and providing informative and honest product reviews. It has no relevance in reporting about companies, films or distribution. It is likely a website used for publishing guest articles to improve SEO.
    • WP:IBTIMES - International Business Times is unreliable.
    • Chennai Vision's article is more about Vijay (actor) and Leo (2023 Indian film) than about the subject and does not have a byline.
    • CinemaSpice only briefly mentions the subject.
    Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeraxmoira's analysis. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor sources on the page. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:53, 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 04:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boxabl

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

At first glance it looks Ok, but when you look deeper almost all sources are bad or primary, such as interviews, articles with too many quotations, press releases and announcements, a few SEC filings and routine news about ELon Musk buying a unit Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "number" are also WP:CORPDEPTH which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Please tell me why the three sourced provided above in my !Keep vote would not meet those standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Very strange that no one voting !Delete is able to refute the sources I provided. No comment on the voting history as of yet but would ask closing admin to look closely at the edit history of this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Businessinsider is behind a paywall so I cannot confirm that is a good source. News Journal is mostly quotations and would be considered unreliable. SF Examiner is not too in-depth. However, even considering that 2 of these might be OK, we still need more than 2 good sources to establish notability. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I've been consistent about HEY for the past few years: a person claiming that sources exist has to do the work to add them to the page. Between the November 2024 citation drive, and my current project assessing every Law-stub, I've rescued dozens of articles in the past five months. When a major claim of the article is refuted, fairly and honestly or not, then it needs more work than ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comment about people not performing HEY. If you take a look at my work with Wikiproject Companies you will know I don't just make a claim unless it can be supported. I think I would partially agree about TNT, although AfD isn't cleanup. I stubified and sourced it, and a WP:BEFORE can be done to see the other references that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. On a normal day I would have recommended G11 but the voting in this AfD prior to yours raised my eyebrows. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Pictures

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

This article is about a film production company that fails to meet notability. The article is sourced only to the company's web site. My search for coverage only turns up passing mentions about them when covering some films where the company was involved. This falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 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 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Solvent Extractions

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

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]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP 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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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

  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.
  2. ^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  3. ^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  4. ^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  5. ^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  6. ^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
  7. ^ "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

  1. ^ Stephen Sims, "The Rise and Fall of Binary Exploitation", DEF CON 32, 2024, [1]
  2. ^ UAE’s EDGE advances cyber acquisition with Crowdfense and plans further expansion, Tactical Report, 2024, [2]
  3. ^ Pierluigi Paganini, "Crowdfense launches $30M exploit acquisition program", Security Affairs, 2024, [3]
  4. ^ EDGE Group punta ad acquisire Crowdfense per rafforzarsi nella cybersicurezza, Analisi Difesa, 2024, [4]
  5. ^ Boom dei costi degli 0day, no-click su mobile: 9 milioni di euro sul listino Crowdfense, Red Hot Cyber, 2024, [5]
  6. ^ Crowdfense: 0day broker rises acquisition price for 2024, Cybersecurity-Help.cz, 2024, [6]
  7. ^ 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[63] and a journal article[64]. Linking here in case anyone has access. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 19 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

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

Non-notable, weak articke Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 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. Not going to salt, for WP:BEANS reasons. asilvering (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDCLIFFE Partners

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

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

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

I 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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Race Craft

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

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Amigao (talk) 21:46, 24 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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
ISQ.networks Press Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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]

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

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [73], but that may fall under TRADES. 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 [74]. 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 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

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

There 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 [75][76] (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]
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 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

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

not notable 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]
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)
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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 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_creepTalk 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 [81] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 2 [82] "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 [83] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
  • Ref 4 [84] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
  • Ref 5 [85] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
  • Ref 5 [86] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

  • Ref 1 Its above.
  • Ref 2 Its above.
  • Ref 5 [87] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
  • Ref 6 [88] 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 [89] 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_creepTalk 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]
  • 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_creepTalk 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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]

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 ([90], [91], [92]). 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]
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]
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 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

List of breweries in San Diego County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: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]

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. Reywas92Talk 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation 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]
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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Companies&oldid=1283914836"