Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP:DS/CO

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrester Research

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

Unable to find significant coverage from independent reliable sources anywhere. The sourcing provided in the article also is only "contact us". Completely unreferenced from a secondary source standpoint. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except the company's own publications and routine directory/PR sites like ZDNet and Crunchbase. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forrester is a well known technology research company that has a been around for decades. They publish research that is heavily referenced by the tech industry. I went to what links here and found about 220 articles either mentioning Forrester's research reports and/or quoting their analysts. By clicking on the articles, you can find some independent coverage: [8][9][10][11]. They are probably best known for the Forrester Wave, which is described here. Quote: For some, a successful inclusion in a Forrester Wave can lead to increased credibility, market recognition, and potential business opportunities. Here's a more recent example of how the media integrates Forrester's research into their reporting. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A classic case where my first reaction is "But it's notable!" and then I see the current poor state of an article. It has been significantly degraded since this version, with a sequence of COI edits and their reversion. Reverting to that version would be better - however, it too is rather deficient in demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don’t see any evidence of notability.

~~User:Curmchunt (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Forrester is a well known name in technology, sales and Marketing research. I found 112 related articles on JSTOR. Electroshocks (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage about the company's business activities over the years. Just a handful of articles: [12] [13] [14][15] [16] [17] Astaire (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated Entertainment

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

Most of the references are instagram links and the others are mostly primary sources. It doesn't look like there's any SIGCOV but someone more familiar with Kuwaiti sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT available in my search. If someone can present non-English references, I would be happy to take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples: Thank you for starting the discussion. I would like to respectfully argue that **Elevated Entertainment** meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) based on the following points:

1. **Long Operational History** – The company was established in 1991 and has remained active for over three decades, managing more than 70 entertainment venues across Kuwait and the GCC. This sustained presence contributes to its regional significance.

2. **Significant Coverage** – The company has received coverage in reliable sources, including: * *Al-Anba Newspaper* (one of Kuwait’s major Arabic-language newspapers), which highlighted their role in public recreation initiatives: [18](https://www.alanba.com.kw/1282036) * Mentions in regional event platforms and tourism initiatives showcasing their “Big Bounce Arabia” project — a large-scale mobile inflatable attraction recognized across multiple Gulf cities.

3. **Clear Differentiation** – Elevated Entertainment is not a minor or local-only business. Their ventures, especially Big Bounce Arabia and Fun Quest, have gained notable regional recognition, serving thousands of visitors per event.

4. **Improvements Made** – The article has been rewritten to meet encyclopedic standards: it now features a neutral tone, structured format, and includes references to external coverage. The promotional language has been removed, and unsourced claims trimmed.

5. **Potential for Expansion** – There is growing coverage of their projects in Arabic-language media and tourism sectors, which can be further integrated into the article.

Therefore, I believe the article is worthy of retention and further development rather than deletion. I welcome any suggestions for improving the article further. LoransofA (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use AI to generate responses in deletion discussions. They are unhelpful. Your response only has one point towards notability (significant coverage), but also fails to address how that significant coverage meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LoransofA: It doesn't look like the article you linked mentions Elevated Entertainment anywhere. You would need to find sources that talk about the company specifically so that they meet these policies: WP:Significant coverage. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

The company mentioned in the article is Big Bounce Arabia, which is owned by Elevated.

I wasn’t able to find a detailed article specifically about Elevated, but there are a few articles about its subsidiaries, such as Big Bounce, as I mentioned earlier, and Fun Quest.

Would it be possible for me to contact the company and request a legal document confirming its ownership of both subsidiaries?

This ownership is also stated on their official website.

Best regards. LoransofA (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Rewriting the article and diversifying the sources. LoransofA (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You basically summarized why this does not meet notability unfortunately. If there are no references that are detailed about Elevated, and we are simply using a legal document (primary source and likely WP:OR), then there are no sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT which is the requirement to show notability for companies. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria for its category (companies/organizations). Ira Leviton (talk) 20:15, 24 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. per WP:SNOW, no reason to drag this out. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign exchange bureaus in Uganda

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

This page fails WP:NLIST WP:DIRECTORY WP:INDISCRIMINATE and potentially WP:MIRROR - there is no clear reason why this merits its own article. All information is taken from one reference, which is just an archived link to a document which contains nearly all the same info. To top it all of, there is a link to someone's scam crypto investment on Telegram at the top of the article SJD Willoughby (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook example of a WP:DIRECTORY failure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Lists, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete astonishing that this has survived since 2010. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:DIRECTORY. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a webhost for commercial directories. Bearian (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTORY. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To add what has already been stated about NOTDIRECTORY, there is no significant coverage that discusses this list as a whole so would fail WP:NLIST as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 22 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 00:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savitech

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

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Savitech (traditional Chinese: 盛微先進科技; simplified Chinese: 盛微先进科技) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article: I believe this article meets notability guidelines. savitech are the developers of the LHDC Bluetooth codec, one of only a handful of codecs certified by the Japan Audio Society for Hi-Res Audio Wireless. That’s a significant technical achievement and recognition from a respected industry body. These sources talk about Savitech and their codec in a substantive way, which supports notability beyond just a passing mention. As for the tone of the article, I agree some parts might read a little promotional — that can and should be fixed with copyedits. But promotional tone alone isn't a reason to delete the article outright, especially when the subject is clearly relevant in the tech/audio industry and verifiable with reliable sources. A cleanup tag seems more appropriate than deletion. Just to be transparent: I’m not affiliated with Savitech, nor have I been paid to write this article. I created it in my free time because I think LHDC is an underrepresented but notable technology in the wireless audio space. Happy to help improve the article further if needed. User:AthulKriZz (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you list sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about the company? The company must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria for the article to be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are a company database (not sigcov), the company website (not independent), a press release (not independent), and a news article that is so blatantly promotional it is either a press release or a paid piece. I couldn't find anything better via a web search, just more press releases and the occasional passing mention. Toadspike [Talk] 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. The article does not have significant secondary reliable coverage and fails WP:NOTABILITY with some mentions passing the article per WP:RELIABILITY. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:48, 30 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 23:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E4 Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted a few years ago, but I don't think it was eligible for C4. The only sources which talk about the company are regurgitated press releases, not true news articles. Many, if not most, of the current sources do not even mention the studio. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am embarrassed I did not look closer at notability while reverting unsourced information over the last six months. A more detailed search was unable to turn up anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of mentions and references based on press releases (churnalism), but not finding anything that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORGCRIT Iban14mxl (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zarah Garde-Wilson. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garde Wilson Lawyers

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

The sources are all about Zarah Garde-Wilson or cases she was involved in, but there's nothing that helps the law firm meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson. There are plenty of mentions of the firm's work on various cases, but I couldn't find anything with the necessary depth to count towards WP:NCORP either. Redirecting to its much more notable founder seems like the best option, especially since any notability the firm does have is likely inherited from her. MCE89 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson per correct analysis by MCE89. BD2412 T 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zarah Garde-Wilson: Sources barely mention the law firm if at all. Not notable outside of Zarah Garde-Wilson. None of the sources could count towards NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson: Clear redirect as law firm does not meet WP:NORG. TarnishedPath^talk 12:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson, a page that could also use attention for NPOV, tone, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 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 05:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straive

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

Not very notable company and only known due to acquisition news Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 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 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. asilvering (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

Non-notable film company. Sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Author appears to have a COI, since they also created Luminosity Entertainment (American film studio), which was an exact duplicate of this article. Possible PE as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, kindly move this article to Luminosity Entertainment which is a red link. The current title includes a unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable music company, refs does provide any details of the company. Fails WP:NCORP. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound Pictures

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

Fails WP:ORG. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IAmaze

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of credible sources. Doesnt match with WP:sicgov WP:gng WP:org AndesExplorer (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, unsourced since 2008. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the nomination reason. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deleted once already, not eligible for soft deletion, policy/guideline notability-related discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is surprising that this instance was created, 8 years after the company's acquisition and 2 years after the previous AFD deletion; there doesn't appear to have been revived coverage to justify this. Looking from this distance, the article contains no assertion of notability, the lack of coverage remains - announcement of acquisition falls under WP:CORPTRIV. No reason to overturn the previous AFD consensus; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:07, 27 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 14:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Suppliers Network

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Lack of independent, reliable sourcing. No evidence of significant impact. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 18 April 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 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This was created by an IP in 2004. Sourcing fails notability. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pearly Gates (record label)

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

Reason: AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC) There are no citations on this page. The only other source I could find was an old MySpace page. The band "Gregory and the Hawk" exists, but doesn't seem to be affiliated with "Pearly Gates." And the Royal Family? Come on. This article should be deleted, unless we're going to write an article for every random MySpace page there is. In terms of specific Wikipedia rules; fails notability standards, sourcing standards, and parts of this article are plainly false.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was one band on this label that went on to greater fame after leaving it, but it had no cultural impact of note in and of itself. Chubbles (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is nothing factually incorrect about the article. The album mentioned as being released by the artist on this label was released in digital format, according to Discogs, which I have no reason to disbelieve . It was also released in two other formats on different labels or independently. There is no indication that the label had any significant cultural impact as required by NMUSIC, nor are there independent sources of high-quality as required by corporate notability requirements. Therefore, I can’t think of any notability guideline, which would indicate at this topic should have encyclopedic attention. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:43, 20 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 14:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Systems

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

The article on Cora Systems lacks sufficient independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this <200-person software company meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those that I can find outside it) are either ROTM "press release republished in local or specialist news outlets" (of a type to be expected for any company of its type), are trivial passing mentions (like random "name drops" in an Oireachtas debate or Limerick County Council report), or (in some cases) do not mention the subject org at all. The clear WP:PAID / WP:COI / WP:PROMO overtones, in the article's creation and its tone/intent, are also very very difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources discussing the subject in depth (WP:SIGCOV). COI and Promotional in tone as said by Guliolopez. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apologize for mistakes I made in writing the article and hope to improve. In the spirit of the project's WP:PRESERVE policy, I've made edits to the article to address concerns and am very open to further improvements. I believe there are enough reliable sources and significant coverage but will stick to WP:THREE for this comment. I'm also adding The Irish Times articles to the refs.

1) Irish Independent: The article is entirely about the company (not a trivial passing mention) and written by a journalist at Irish Independent (secondary source).

2) RTE: The article is entirely about the company and is written by a journalist at RTE, a public service broadcaster.

3) Silicon Republic: The article is entirely about the company and written by a journalist at Silicon Republic. Arcticwindowpane (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment:

Re: Guliolopez's objection: "Where does either linked source say anything about the org being "among a small number of technology firms based outside Ireland’s major urban centers"? Or anything like it? The siliconrepublic.com source makes no mention of the subject org."

The reason I added that Silicon Republic source is because it lists the locations where most tech companies in Ireland are located. Cora Systems is not in one of those locations. Ergo, it is one of a small number of tech firms outside major urban centers.

Re: the quote from Neale Richmond, here it is in full:

"Over the past number of years, Ireland has become a global digital technology hub – and pioneering Irish innovators like Cora Systems have played a pivotal and transformative role in the sector. Global leaders are increasingly turning to Irish-owned enterprises for solutions, as their innovative offerings, talent, and cutting-edge services are trusted around the world.

As a result, we have seen the development of innovative, talented, and disruptive Irish-owned digital technology companies and Cora Systems exemplifies this. Today’s opening is a great boost not just for Dublin but also for the North-West region where their HQ is based, connecting both to the global stage. The expansion paves the way for Cora Systems to grow its highly innovative business and to significantly scale its activities. I wish Philip and team all the best for what is sure to be a very exciting future.”

I believe this sentence is supported by that quote: "At the opening of its Dublin office, then-Minister of State for Business, Employment and Retail Neale Richmond recognized the company's "transformative role" in the Irish digital technology sector." 20:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Arcticwindowpane (talk)

Hi. In terms of the sources you mention, they are interviews and republished press releases. Which are not considered independent for the purposes of WP:SIRS. Specifically:

Independent.ie (1 Apr 2018). That piece is written by Seán Gallagher. A businessperson. Not a "journalist at Irish Independent". As part of a series in which he "[met] owners of small and medium sized businesses" (in which the company interviewee describes a 57-person business with €5.5m turnover - similar to innumerable SMEs worldwide). As it is an interview, it doesn't materially contribute to notability.
RTE.ie (24 May 2022). That is a republished press release. Similar to any business report published every day. The original company press release (22 May 2022) is here. The RTE piece is not independent reporting.
Silicon Republic (19 Jun 2023). That is a republished press release. The original company press release (also dated to 19 June 2023) is here. It is not independent reporting.

In terms of the FV/SYNTH/OR concerns, those should be dealt with in the article or article talk. Not here. (SYNTH/OR/FV issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues and not relevant to AfD discussions.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Headcount and "orphan article" status don't matter for notability under Wikipedia's guidelines - what counts is significant, independent coverage from reliable sources, which we definitely have here. The Irish Independent, RTE, and Silicon Republic aren't press releases - they're actual articles with bylines. And The Irish Times - Ireland's newspaper of record - covered the company too. The company is clearly notable based on this national media attention from various independent sources who've taken the time to report on what they're doing. XwycP3 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi. RE: "'orphan article' status don't matter for notability under Wikipedia's guidelines". I may have missed it, but I didn't see any arguments based on "orphan" status. RE: "Headcount [..] don't matter for notability". As the nominator doesn't mention headcount, I can but assume this is a response to a comment of mine. To confirm, I mention the org's headcount (<200 people) as a point of comparison. Orgs under 250 people are classed as SMEs. Of which there are over 200,000 in Ireland. Representing, per the CSO, "99.8% of all enterprises". This SME has been the subject of the same coverage (funding rounds/jobs announcements/software launch events/other press releases covered in business pages) as we would expect for any other similarly sized company. I mentioned headcount for this relative comparison. Not as an absolute or standalone rationale. RE: "The Irish Times [..] covered the company too". All the Irish Times references in the article fail a WP:SIRS test. The "300 jobs" piece (May 2022) is based on this "300 jobs" press release (May 2022). The "'revolutionary' software" piece (Sep 2018), including the quotes (repeated in similar reporting) about the software being "'game-changing' adaptable software" and how it "revolutionises transparency", come from the org's own PR. Seemingly its promotional launch event of Sep 2018. This coverage is therefore based on interviews/press-releases/statements from those associated with the company. And not, as expected by WP:SIRS, "completely independent of the article subject". Guliolopez (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Guliolopez, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPL Co., Ltd

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

Obscure game company who released numerous notable games and went defunct long ago, whose only notable event in the 21st century is selling their intellectual property to Hamster Corporation. Little to no significant reliable sources about the company individually exist on and off the Internet, with the article sustaining on a single Twitter source for as long as one can remember. A Google search of UPL associates the name with an Indian company of the same name. Easily fails WP:NCORP. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've also had a look at the article on jpwiki and none of the sources listed there appear to satisfy WP:GNG. If anything this should be a footnote on Universal Entertainment instead of its own article. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 17 April 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 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Hamster Corporation? Otherwise Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:47, 24 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. Just noting that only one editor here who is arguing for Keep has less than 200 edits, others are more experienced, particularly Bearian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Steel

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

I declined a G5 as an IP had some copyediting, but that might be a sock of the original banned editor, and I don't know enough about Indian companies to determine if the organisation is notable or not. So here's a discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 24 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!} 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the subject notable. Sources cited in the article like The Indian Express, Times of India, and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. SATavr (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was ready to go for delete, but there are actual facts and good sources. It certainly needs more work, but it appears to be notable on close examination. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. If sockpuppetry and editing by COI IP users continues, I would suggest protecting the article to allow editing only by autoconfirmed users in order to prevent further disruption. The article requires substantial improvement, particularly in the sections beyond the lead, and needs better referencing. However the subject appears to meet notability criteria with sufficient significant and critical coverage available through Google search results.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the Keep !voters have identified any sources that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, that is in-depth "independent content" about the orgnization. "Independent Content" means content which isn't entirely reliant on press releases, announcements, interviews or other content regurtitated from company sources. For example, this Times of India article referred to above is not Independent (as in "independent content") and is not in-depth. It is 7 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are directly attributed to the company, with the rest relying entirely on information provided by the company with no independent commentary or analysis, article fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in New Indian Express is a single sentence - that is not in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP meets at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content". And i can see some references in Google search that pass the criteria. Syam Steel Case Study, Economic Times, The Times of India, Business Today and The Economic Times. B-Factor (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the aforementioned sources in more detail and point out why they fail NCORP - happy to listen to a counter-argument if you disagree

This "case study" is written by a Amazon AWS because the topic company uses their services. That isn't "independent content", that's advertising, fails ORGIND
This from Economic Times is a press release from the company and fails ORGIND. For example, you can find the exact same article reguritated in different publications such as here, here, here and here.
This repeats what the company announced (and acknowledges this in the article text) with no independent content (e.g. commentary/analysis/etc). You can find the same announcement regurgitated here. Fails ORGIND.
This is a mere mention with no in-depth information (not even a complete sentence) about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
Finally, this article (which is 7 sentences) is also entirely based on company PR and contains no "independent content". Of the seven sentences, four are directly attributed to a company official. You can also find the exact same information in different publications such as this and this (which acknowledges it is PR). Fails ORGIND.

Regurgitated PR does not meet NCORP criteria. I'm happy to take another look if you can point out which paragraphs in which sources you believe contains independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Research shows that it is 70 Years old company employing more than 2000 people. In old days there were no online media. But i am sure there must be some print news of the subject. And there are online references that support the notability criteria of this company. I suggest that this page should not be deletedAlmandavi (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be an influx of editors here with less than 200 edits each, using similar reasoning but without providing any analysis of *why* particular sources meet NCORP, and without identifying sections within those source which contain in-depth independent content. AfD doesn't simply count !votes, and especially at NCORP-related AfD's where we require adequate sourcing. If the topic company is notable, we should at least be able to find sourcing and identify and explain why it meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 8 May 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avolution

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

Created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced for 17 years. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seem to be a few companies using this name [19], [20]... I don't think it's the avocado company, I'm not really sure what the company in this article does. I don't see sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. I don't think AfD was needed in this case. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a declined prod so I think ineligible for speedy. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs in the article and I couldnt find anything other than a few trivial mentions in some tech publications, which leads me to believe there arent any WP:RS out there. This is not the place for free advertising! Dfadden (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article mentions their tool's use in various frameworks, and it has been included in tables such as in the TOGAF article, but these don't demonstrate notability for the company. Searches find a piece about a recent PE investment in the firm [21], but that is connected coverage due to the firm's origin. Overall, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:58, 23 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxigen Services

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

The article should be deleted due to its promotional tone, lack of reliable citations, questionable notability. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete t seems like many sources are gone and may have just been paid placements (when I click just the main page of the newspaper appears). I was trying to find arguments and sources to help the page, but mostly sponsorship coverage with citations and promo tags can be found. However, the firm is 20 years old, and some sources may still exist. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the tone can be fixed. I was able to open up a lot of the cited refs. Old-AgedKid, can you clarify what you mean by mostly sponsorship coverage? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:30, 24 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 06:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathkind Labs

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

The article should be deleted due to concerns regarding its overall notability, lack of extensive coverage in independent sources, and the potential for promotional language Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:35, 25 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 23:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meditopia

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ILIKEIT, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Sources are routine announcements, funding, etc. Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve trimmed the article significantly to take out anything that sounded promotional or was just routine info. What’s left is backed by solid, independent sources like TechCrunch, Forbes, and Deloitte, which offer real coverage that meets notability guidelines WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. I think the article should stay, and I’m totally open to improving it further with help from other editors. Hariseldon42 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the articles you've mentioned. Whenever you see an article which includes a sentence along the lines of "Today, COMPANYX announced..." or similar, then it is PR, not independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the trimmed-down version with less promotional material, I do not believe meditopia meets WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Current sources are not covering the app/company in detail; most are simply routine coverage of business investments in business-focused papers/journals. As a company itself I don't think Deloitte is independent here. A further search for sources returns much of the same. Unless someone can identify reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage of meditopia that is not reliant on executive interviews then this article should be deleted. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the available sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 6 May 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 and redirect‎ to Sheldon Silver. asilvering (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.

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

I don't see independent significant coverage outside of a scandal (and even that is largely tabloid sources like New York Post). According to the talk page, this article is the product of a UPE sock farm to highlight negative aspects of law firms they have issues with Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a deletion, although a redirect to Sheldon Silver, who was of counsel to the firm, is reasonable and appropriate. The article as written is irredeemable. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable law firm that's only notable because of Sheldon Silver's involvement in the firm. The sources mention the firm, but the firm is never the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good candidate for a Wikipedia:Blank and redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheldon Silver as it is WP:TOOSOON. There are notable sources but not significant enough to establish secondary verified notability. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 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 23:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ability with Innovation

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

The subject is not WP:Notable SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources using Google News, and the only article I've found is a Manchester Evening News article which gives it a trivial mention.^[1] They do come up when you google their name. But other than this Wikipedia article, most of these results are self-published or contain basic facts (e.g. contact directories LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.). This continues until the third page of Google, where the results start getting irrelevant.

The only sources that are used to support claims about AWI are AWI's website and a report by various religious and humanitarian groups which I think fails verification. There are also 3 sources which are not used to substantiate claims about AWI, Daily Kos and globalsecurity.org, both of which are noted for unreliability (WP:DAILYKOS WP:GLOBALSECURITY), and a U.S. Marine Corps report. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cox, Charlotte (2015-09-02). "Monster cargo plane descends on Manchester Airport". Retrieved 2025-04-20. The flight organised by Ability with Innovation contractors drew at big crowd to Altrincham's Runway Visitor Park.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Delete. I'd say this is a fairly good case of not meeting WP:CORP. I don't see any significant coverage either, and most search hits seem to lead back to this Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoSun Inc.

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

Originally AI generated with a bunch of fake sources. When the nonexistent sources, the unsupported information, and a whole lot of empty promotional fluff had been taken out, what remains is a stub article with a few sources mentioning products manufactured by the company, but nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Procyon117 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like WP:UPE, but sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT exist in various publications. There are numerous entries in Google Books as well but I did not go through them all. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sources that talk about future products do not contribute to the notability of a company. Heck, it would be pretty easy to get some media attention by making some claims about a future product. We need WP:INDEPTH sources about the company itself. Polygnotus (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes down to sourcing, not products. The guideline can be found at WP:ORGCRIT. The term "future" does not apply to most of its products anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The CNET and Men's Journal reviews appear to fall under the WP:ORGCRIT section on product reviews for tech -- they read like PR-driven reviews. (The MJ review has a purchase link at the bottom that would generate referral income for the publication.) The LevelUp piece is trivial coverage and the Business Insider article is purely press release and company interview-driven. Other sources in article are WP:TRADES or blog posts. I don't see an WP:NCORP pass here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 23 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 23:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table Space

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

This article about an Indian coworking provider fails WP:NCORP. The coverage consists of routine WP:ORGTRIV coverage related to capital raises, expansion of the business, etc. ([22], [23], [24]), much of it unbylined and thus questionable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. There's also some coverage of the death of its founder ([31], [32]) that constitutes WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I didn't find anything qualifying in my BEFORE search and there's no obvious AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Karnataka. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would be interesting to see if anyone can produce something that falls within WP:ORGCRIT as the only thing I see is mentions, routine announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSWM Limited

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, share price, new brand launch news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am open to reviewing any sources someone can present that meet WP:ORGCRIT, but I cannot locate any in a WP:BEFORE. I tried name variations (including the original name) in Google News, Google Books, and Google Search but there is not enough to add up to significant coverage. I may be searching wrong as I would suspect a company that was founded in 1960 would have more in-depth coverage by now should the public find them worthy of notice. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, searched on google but found nothing reliable.

Afstromen (talk) 07:11, 22 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 00:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tega Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom rationale and recent similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources in article and business sites appear routine, but I found a couple of case studies that look like decent coverage. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Sage Business Cases. Would these be considered independent, reliable sources? Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and mentioned sources do not seem to establish notability, though I cannot access them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirisys

(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, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- entirely promotional article ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 01:43, 22 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 06:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VISA Steel

(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. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 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 14:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are primary and don’t cover subject Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. Article only serves to promote company.- Imcdc Contact 05:04, 23 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 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPIC (Indian company)

(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, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like share price fluctuation news are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and as per nomination. Besides the issues raised, this is horribly written and promotional. We cater to humans with an 8th grade level of reading English, which shouldn't be difficult if you don't use AI and corporate jargon. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. - Imcdc Contact 03:34, 21 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, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GSS Infotech

(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 revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, funding, acquisitions news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's little more than a holding company. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. Mostly press releases right now.- Imcdc Contact 03:33, 21 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 06:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mastek

(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 revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. – The Grid (talk) 18:02, 22 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like raising funds, performing successful surgeries etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of the hospital to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

References

^ "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
^ "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single source supplied by Pharaoh supports notability. They are all unbylined sources, which per WP:NEWSORGINDIA should not be considered reliable, even in otherwise reliable outlets like the Hindu. Three of them are literal press releases from the subject and stated as such ([33], [34], [35]). This is nowhere near the standard of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS required for WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamna Auto Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like establishing new manufacturing units, acquiring others' production units, expanding overseas business by appointing an expat etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless articles talking about the stock price count (which they don't) then I can find nothing that clears my sniff-test for being independent news. If non-english languages sources can be shown to exist then I can change my vote. Moritoriko (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 01:45, 22 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 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDIL

(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 share price performances, investments, rudimentary litigation news, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found https://www.fayobserver.com/story/business/2018/10/18/eclerx-to-expand-delivery-service-add-150-jobs-in-fayetteville/9519735007/ (syndicated by the AP: https://apnews.com/74f5de0c89084f29844015e48d5c6459) but the information contained isn't enough to meet notability. The previous nomination brought up things like https://books.google.ca/books?id=rk9UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA266&dq=eclerx&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLlOu7npfrAhV8g3IEHZlbAm8Q6AEwAnoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=eclerx&f=false but that concentrates on a specific (widespread) technology; it's essentially a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [36][37][38], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [39], [40], [41], [42]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first link Anerdw is an entire book evaluating the subject pedagogically and without any apparent COI. The other links Anerdw provides aren't that crazy notable, but also do very much offer significant coverage. The second link nom (Bridget) provides is a long PCMag review, and it does provide analysis (e.g. was disheartened not to have access to snapping guides for centering and aligning); I doubt nom's interpretation of CorpDepth anyways: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product. Even without analysis, description would be enough under the "or". To me, CorpDepth is just something that excludes e.g. "articles" whose only independent content is routine stuff like "Company got $1 billion in founding round B, 14% of which was from famed Corpo C. Additionally, 43% of this contribution was from Corpo D, while 18% was from famed VC...." etc. Any coverage that provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization should qualify for the SigCov criteria. In my experience, the precedent at AfD is that tech publications and product reviews are not disqualified form notability considerations, and such is also the opinion of the oft-cited essay WP:NSOFTWARE. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:14, 21 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!} 23:19, 28 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. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, any follow-up here? -- asilvering (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Have just completed total revision of the article once through. Will add comments below the line. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG now that sources have been improved on the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment. I initially came to this article on 19 April expecting to !vote delete, because the article looked like this. As the editors above all noted, the article was very poorly sourced, with no secondary sources, and essentially read like a promotional directory listing, likely created/edited by someone with a close connection to the school. (If this was you, please have a read of WP:NOTPROMO as Wikipedia has policies against advertising.) The nominator said they struggled to find secondary sources, and RebeccaGreen, an editor with impressive research chops in this area, said she didn't find much online, either. All in all, it was not pointing in a promising direction.

However, RebeccaGreen also suggested that part of the problem may have been the fact that Stage School Australia was previously known as Australian Youth Theatre. Thus, this suggested two logical avenues for research: 1) Could reliable secondary sources be found if we conducted searches beyond "just Google"? 2) Could reliable secondary sources be found if we used search terms other than "Stage School Australia"? Stage School Australia is like the umbrella organisation name for Australian Youth Theatre, Youth Australian Broadway Chorus, and Australian Boys Dance Academy. To make things even more complicated, over its 40-year history, it has also been known as Victorian Youth Theatre and Children's Performing Company of Australia.

Searching ProQuest using all the school's past and present names yielded significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources over the course of the school's 40+ year history. The article now looks like this (see Stage School Australia) and was completely rewritten from top to bottom. In terms of the best pieces of coverage, I would point to the 2016 feature article on YABC "Youth Theatre Far From Child's Play" in the Herald Sun (while it includes quotes from the artistic director of YABC, it also includes facts that were vetted by the journalist and likely the editorial staff); the 2011 article "Rude Awakenings", which was written by Robin Usher for The Age, a major national newspaper, in which he examines the YABC's somewhat eyebrow-raising production of the coming-of-age rock musical Spring Awakening which they staged with real teenagers playing the parts of teens exploring sex and dealing with abortion and suicide (interviewing some of the children as well as the school and including facts vetted by the journalist and editors); a 2010 review of a YABC performance at the Adelaide Fringe festival in The Advertiser; and this 2025 review in The Scoop of a Stage School Australia production of Seussical (easily found via Google once you start adding more than one search term or parameter).

I have removed all the directory-esque course listing information from the article, and also removed all mentions of alumni which aren't backed by sources (primary or secondary). I have also expanded the article with facts from the many additional sources which were found.

To conclude, this is why I decided to !vote keep per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:HEY. Pinging RebeccaGreen. Cheers. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:12, 4 May 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/Digital Garage (company)

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus from detailed source analysis indicates independent, SIGCOV reliable sourcing not available. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinswitch

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

The company does not meet the notability criteria per WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sources mentioned are trivial mentions and promotional in nature, failing to provide the depth needed to establish notability. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. I have found no in-depth coverage of coinswitch in reliable sources. Largely seems to be another generic crypto exchange this time focused on the market in India.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying 'no in-depth coverage in reliable sources' is incorrect, what is true is that this is crowded by routine coverage, press releases and sources under WP:ILLCON. Money ≠ notability, though this is India's largest crypto exchange. Along with Coinswitch mainly being known for its products which have received sustained coverage meeting WP:NPRODUCT, there is much coverage to support NCORP criteria. Forbes article, The Economic Times, Mint, are some examples. Hmr (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The three articles in the comment above are ok, Forbes is a staff report, second one is about the company, Mint is an interview with the CEO but has some other info. These look okl Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the [Reuters] article is pretty good arms-length reporting on results annouced by the company (e.g., talking about competitors, saying they can't confirm some claims). Agree with Oaktree b that Forbes is good and independent, and Economic Times has its heart in the right place. Mint is borderline puff piece, not just a press release but not very independent either, but the first three are sufficient to meet WP:NORG Oblivy (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes India article listed above relies pretty heavily on comments from company founders and is part of a list of interviews/commentaries for "tycoons of tomorrow". It is not offering much in the way of significant secondary coverage. Interviews with CEOs are considered primary under WP:NORG so the article from Mint cannot be considered for notability. The article from Reuters appears to be independent + secondary, but it largely reads as routine coverage of the company's valuation after receiving venture capital funding. With the practice of opaque paid-for coverage in India, including Times group properties, I am also concerned whether the article from The Economic Times can be considered reliable as portions read like puffery. It also includes many comments from the company's leaders, though not as many as the Forbes piece. I stand by my earlier assessment that there is a lack of notable coverage in reliable sources and believe this article should be deleted unless additional significant coverage from well-established reliable sources can be found.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comment, none of the references provide sufficient significant in-depth "independent content" to establish notability as per NCORP criteria. The Forbes Indian article relies entirely on information provided by the company and via interview, fails ORGIND. The Economic Times article is another example of a company profile which relies on the same methodology and has no "independent content", also fails ORGIND. The Mint article is a straight-up interview, fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I think the Reuters article is good but the Forbes and Economic Times articles comments about the company are basically only in the form of quotes from the founders. Depending on the future of crypto in India this very well could be a notable business soon but don't think we have enough independent coverage of the business now. Moritoriko (talk) 01:14, 25 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 04:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Pets

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

No reliable coverage per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) either on the page or across the web (wp before). Not notable company. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that whether or not this is actually notable OP is wrong... There are reliable sources, both on the page and across the web... Whether or not we should have a stand alone page or merge to General Mills or an associated page is still an open question and I would probably lean towards merge but the assertion that no reliable sources exist is patently false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I only see across the web General Mills acquires Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 billion, General Mills to acquire Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 bln and similar ones Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't see Tiki Pets in those articles? Because I do... And the sources appear reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources means reliable independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions don't count Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources means reliable sources. If you mean independent in-depth coverage you have to say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! I changed the initial rationale for deletion. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still wrong, you need to add significant, in-depth, something like that before reliable. I don't think you understand that trivial and routine coverage can still be reliable, it just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 9 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!} 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only news articles are about it being purchased by General Mills. It isn't a significant enough part of GM to warrant a redirect to the article like the other non-notable brands that make up the General Mills portfolio. Moritoriko (talk) 23:45, 27 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 Carl Cox. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [43] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [44], though that could be a press release. Further, this article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2017 with few efforts at improvement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carl Cox. The nomination doesn't give a particularly good sense that this should have been sent to AfD; the nominator isn't strongly in favor of deletion and doesn't mention WP:MUSIC despite this being a music-related topic (it's only referred to as a company, rather than a record label). Many, many AfDs of record labels are label imprints of notable musical artists, and this one is no exception; I'm not sure that there's sufficient reason for a standalone article here, but mentioning it in connection with Cox's other artistic output makes sense. In general, these should be proposed as merges rather than sent to AfD; there's no reason to have a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several redirects pointing towards this article are currently nominated at RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 9#Intec Digital redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Carl Cox. Topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 06:32, 22 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) 00:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

CyberStep

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on the article, I did want to point out that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person—i.e. WP:BIO—would not come into play for an article for a company, which falls under NCORP instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources on JP wiki or done a BEFORE in Japanese? IgelRM (talk) 19:51, 9 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!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE not done - there are many sources on the Japanese article that should have been addressed before starting the AfD. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is just a copypaste from a bunch of other nominations about different types of subjects like BLPs, which do not apply here. This is a waste of community time. MarioGom (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company does not have to meet person guidelines, plethora of sources on the Japanese article as mentioned. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 21 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 Cinesite. and merge any unique encyclopedic content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'Atelier Animation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. fails WP:SIRS fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meet WP:GNG--Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added films that L'Atelier Animation helped make. It has been profiled in reliable sources including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Animation Magazine and Cartoon Brew. Kansas Reimer (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite. I can see a lot of very niche trade references about the company ... though I can't see the Variety or Hollywood Reporter profiles (can you link them User:Kansas Reimer?). There's enough out there that delete would be overkill. But I'd need to be convinced that it couldn't be included in the website for the company, rather than this division. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite as not independently notable but relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistng. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the studio may have notability, however, in-depth coverage is not sufficient at the moment Cinder painter (talk) 09:56, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightware

AfDs for this article:

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose due to inaccurate nomination this article needs to be updated and there is missing information, but it is not fair to say that it should be deleted because it is not notable and relies on promotional material or self published sources when the sources used are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. There are some self published sources that could be removed, and could have been removed by the nominator faster than creating this AfD. At the same time there are plenty of other RS that could be added to enhance the article and improve it such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which all support that this firm is notable according to WP:NCORP Nayyn (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet NCORP? Specifically, which sources contain "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* and not just regurgitated company info or based on quotes from execs? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn: please clarify

This from tech.eu dated 19 Dec 2019 relies entirely on regurgitating this announcement from the same date issued from the company. It contains no independent content and fails ORGIND.
[This fails for the exact same reasons but also because they are a connected party, having advised on the deal. Fails ORGIND.
[This is a Press Release written by the company, obviously press releases are not independent content, fails ORGIND.
This is another regurgitation of a company press release. Fails ORGIND.
This techcrunch article fails ORGIND for the exact same reasons as the first two.

I'm baffled as to how these references can possibly meet NCORP. Can you clarify which paragraphs in each source contains in-depth "independent content" or how they otherwise meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 23 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!} 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing do you no longer hold your previous view on this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stockhausenfan, the previous AfD was over 7 years ago and since then, it has been established that reviews of the software product do not confer notability on the company. If the article was about the software, then the software reviews could be used to establish notability on the software. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD (which is not addressed by the new nomination). Stockhausenfan (talk)

@Stockhausenfan:. Which references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company? Which parts of the articles are in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think I can find a single source that isn't a WP:ORGTRIV announcement. (for the record, TechCrunch and VentureBeat are terrible sources for notability for the most part, though there are occasional instances where they're useful for that purpose I guess) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 30 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 06:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villilä studios

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

The article not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies or studios. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 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!} 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it passes WP:ORGDEPTH, but there's quite some news coverage from Finnish media (e.g. Yle). I would suggest searching for "Villilä Studiot". MarioGom (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:10, 22 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. While numerically there's slightly greater weight for delete, the single keep contribution is far more detailed than the nomination and the interventions waving at ADMASQ and per nominator. As such, there's effectively two detailed but opposite views regarding notability, neither of which fully refutes the other. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing in this article is like a flea market: cluttered, uneven, but with real value among the items. Roughly two-thirds of the 33 references are clearly low-quality, promotional, or dead links and should be trimmed per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. However, 6 to 7 are solid pieces from reliable national sources including The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, Forbes India, and India Today, offering independent coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. This is a clear keep and a strong cleanup candidate under WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've performed a WP:HEY cleanup: removed all promotional and unverified claims, trimmed weak sources, and ensured the article is now built on a solid core of high-quality, independent sources, with minor supporting references for individual events. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete change !vote since redirect target no longer exists Merge to Rishabh Sanjay Shah as per WP:ATD and redirect. First, fair play to HerBauhaus for the extensive cleanup, the article is much better now. But unfortunately, I cannot locate any reference that provides in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Most of the references have a couple of sentences describing the organisation at most, all saying much the same thing, that the organization is involved in organising conferences or has been involved in marches or other movements. A lot of the articles are dedicated to a participant in a conference (might go to notability of the participant?) or one of the conferences (might go to notability of a particular event?) or to the founder (might go to notability of the founder?). We even have stuff about the find-a-bed program (might go to notability of the find-a-bed movement?). But if the topic is the organization, then NCORP criteria says we require references that establish the notability of the organization. I suggest the material here, which overlaps extensively with the existing material in the target, can easily be merged. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit unsure about the merge suggestion. The article appears to meet WP:GNG, with broad, independent coverage from sources like The Economic Times, Forbes India, and India Today. Even when the founder or events are mentioned, isn’t the organization itself the recurring subject? Wouldn’t that satisfy notability under GNG, regardless of WP:NCORP? And since the content focuses on the organization's activities rather than a personal biography, wouldn’t merging to the founder risk WP:COATRACK concerns? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question contains a flawed premise which, when pointed out, will reveal the answer. There isn't a "regardless of WP:NCORP" because GNG and NCORP are essentially the same thing. NCORP shows how the general notability guidelines (GNG) *must* be applied for companies/organisations. Or put another way - an article about a company can't meet GNG and not meet NCORP and if you think the article does, it must be only because you're applying the guidelines incorrectly for this topic area and you must be ignoring the NCORP guidelines (which are instructions on *how* the general GNG guidelines are to apply). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging this page with Rishabh Sanjay Shah would be pointless, as he was previously involved in hijacking other pages, leading to their eventual deletion through the AFD process. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rishabh_Shah. Charlie (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant independent coverage from major Indian reliable sources, including The Economic Times, Forbes India, DNA India, and India Today, establishes clear notability under both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Cleanup has fully addressed prior issues of sourcing and tone. Wikipedia’s notability guidelines require significant coverage, not exhaustive or exclusively in-depth coverage. Topics from non-Western contexts must be evaluated under the same standard as all others. This article meets policy and should be retained. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are WP:ADMASQ/WP:RSNOI. Charlie (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:08, 28 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 12:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Parks Foundation

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

Delete due to its reliance on a single source, which does not sufficiently establish the organization's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. The article lacks independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the foundation's impact and activities OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OatPancake, obviously the current article sourcing is minimal, but what is your evaluation of the various book, magazine and congressional hearing sources visible from the Google Books link above? AllyD (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for a response to AllyD's query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added sourcing from the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, Reuters, and New York Times (x3), all WP:RS. They cover the Foundation and its flagship SummerStage program. While the NYT articles are partially behind a paywall, they meet WP:NEXIST. Even with unsourced content removed, it passes WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since my original !vote, I’ve done a bit of added house cleaning on the article. It now cites 8 – 9 independent WP:RS, including The New York Times (×5), Reuters, ABC News, and the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation. I’ve removed unsourced and promotional material, copyedited the lead, and beefed up the history section. It’s no longer a stub relying on the organization’s website. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added. This nomination came with zero WP:BEFORE effort. MarioGom (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coralogix

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

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources, or non-independent tech blogs, which may not adequately demonstrate the company’s significant coverage in reputable secondary sources. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep - there are a good amount of sources including this and this. I believe that the article can be improved - there are a number of repeated citations and excessive primary sources referenced in the article, but I think that the subject passes the notability test.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither meets NCORP criteria. This is entirely based on information provided by the company and their CEO about a funding round, fails ORGIND. And this is the same, more regurgitated company info about an earlier funding round, also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards deletion, as the sources are more like press releases, and no non-trivial coverage has been found. Sources like this are good but not enough https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-data-analytics-co-coralogix-raises-142m-1001413941 Old-AgedKid (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore NCORP requires in-depth "independent content" about the company. Reworded press releases on funding rounds and "exciting" updates don't meet the grade. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are WP:ORGTRIV; no evidence this subject passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 21 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 13:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMS-Helmets

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, there is no WP:SIGCOV. A review for one of their products does not grant notability. Coeusin (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Portugal. Coeusin (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator's rationale. The external links fail to demonstrate any notability or significant coverage. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:25, 14 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 John Messara. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowfield Stud

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

Fails WP:GNG, is based on 1 primary source and 1 deadlink. Also issues with WP:PROMO and contains wikilinks to irrelevant subjects. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Horse racing, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Messara. Apparently Arrowfield is a big operation and very well known in the industry, but everything is founded by John Messara and under the umbrella of "Arrowfield Group Limited" (ARF1), of which Messara is the chairman. There are a LOT of online articles mentioning Arrowfield Stud or -Group, mostly brief mentions as the breeder or owner of this or that horse, but Messara is the main star—searches for any of these names return many quotes by Messara from press inquiries and interviews. Messara seems well-known and well-reputed within the thoroughbred breeding and racing industries in Australia.
Sample search results:
- Thoroughbred Daily News: Arrowfield Stud 645 hits, Arrowfield Group 75 hits, John Messara 287 hits
- Breednet page links to high-dollar sales
- Advertorial in Equestrian Hub

Arrowfield is also the sponsor of a race which has its own wiki-article: Arrowfield Stud Plate. "Arrowfield Stud" appears in 60 wiki articles, at least 18 of which wikilink directly to Arrowfield Stud.

I couldn't find any comprehensive coverage on the stud itself except for articles interviewing Messara (interviews rank as primary sources) but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't find any. The John Messara article isn't too long that it couldn't host "Arrowfield" content and redirect all the company names to it. All of the related articles (including the stallion articles) have been edited by likely-COI editors and probably need cleaning up, not deleting.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article needs cleaned up and expanded with pertinent references. Just because they don't exist right now doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. If the trend is to start deleting articles just because they are stubs then the direction of notice should be for the project to consider improving it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but no new refs have been added to this article since 2013 and there have been many edits since, including editors who have questioned its notability and referencing issues (see here and [45] edit summaries) Do we keep it for another 12 years in the hope someone eventually fixes it? It also appears that the most recent active contributors may have a WP:COI and currently the only working reference is the farm's own website. My concerns are not just about notability but also about WP:PROMO.
Dfadden (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Messara Iban14mxl (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Messara.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 20 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 05:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medica Hospitals

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe some sources exist, given the scope of work and a big number of branches it has. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 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!} 23:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. Plus at least three citations are getting flagged as with potential security threats... Asteramellus (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. - Imcdc Contact 03:31, 21 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 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 [46] 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]

Hi RebeccaGreen, the InfoWorld article is based entirely on information provided by the company - that isn't "independent Content" - fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria, no sourcing available that is both in-depth and "independent content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically sources are all brief, routine business announcements, and I don't find anything more substantial. I will check back in case someone finds something better. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 26 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 - [47], this news article-[48], a public record- [49], and this magazine coverage too- [50]. 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.[51][52] 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 [53] one line mention- and Epoch Networks (the nation's largest privately held ISP at the time).[54][55][56]. 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 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]

Keep as it makes more sense to improve it than delete it. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes more sense to delete barely-disguised PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 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.

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. Many of the arguments on the Keep side were based primarily on the weakness of the nomination, which by itself, is not a valid reason to retain an article. Among those who examined sourcing vis-à-vis NCORP, I see a rough consensus that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. This view was also shared by the lone "Neutral" !vote here. The outcome is the same whether or not I discard the (canvassed?) SPA vote by the account created for this AfD. Kudos to HighKing for the thorough source assessment work. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [57] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Notability (WP:N)

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

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

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

3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)

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

4. Deletion Criteria

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

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

References

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

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:

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

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

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

first-time contributor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Comment, I agree w/ HighKing's source analysis so leaning delete (although I can't access the Intelligence Online sources either)- but I found a few paywalled sources that seem to discuss the subject, a book[58] and a journal article[59]. Linking here in case anyone has access. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Companies proposed deletions

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

[1] Cox, Charlotte (2015-09-02). "Monster cargo plane descends on Manchester Airport". Retrieved 2025-04-20. The flight organised by Ability with Innovation contractors drew at big crowd to Altrincham's Runway Visitor Park.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[y588-2] "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[l629-3] "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i488-4] "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[t901-5] "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[b612-6] Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[i773-7] "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i743-8] "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[j836-9] The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[Repubblica20190805-10] D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20180425-11] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20190307-12] Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[TechCrunch20240406-13] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

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

[IntOnline20230830-15] "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]