Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shortcuts

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

PUR Energy Limited

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Telangana. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sayegh Airlines

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Most of the coverage that exists on the airline is related to the sale of the airline's aircraft to Iran Air. The best that I could find was from this article: "Al Sayegh Airlines was founded by Saleem Al Sayegh, the chief executive of UAE-based National Paints, with the aim of operating five cargo aircraft and three passenger aircraft, according to reports at the time." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Transportation, Kyrgyzstan, and United Arab Emirates. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaling International

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

Lack of significant coverage relating to the company itself instead of Mindy Kaling herself or the respective films/series produced by the company. Might warrant a section redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and California. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Partners

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

I have also been unable to find any useful coverage. I can see this was deleted as Sphere Inc. last week at AFD with Niafied and Chess enjoyer participating. As it was a soft deletion, I don't think there's much point in trying to G4 this, and it doesn't have enough potential to really even draftify, but taking it here again to confirm the not-meeting-NCORP-ness and to ask the article creator to please find some other topic to try and create an article on, thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per last week's AFD. MSTL (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caltex Music

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

Subject has no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Notability isn't inherited from the notable subsidiary of the subject Caltex Records. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to own website removed, addition sources added. M-infoarchives (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caltex Records. Jdcooper (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caltex Music is the parent company of Caltex Records which the article explains. M-infoarchives (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caltex Records: What's essentially the substance of the article (the list of notable artists) is doubled up from Caltex Records, so a merge isn't even warranted in this case. Nil🥝 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Able to remove the list of notable artists. Caltex Music is the parent company of Caltex Records which the article explains. M-infoarchives (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M-infoarchives Caltex Music doesn't get an article just because Caltex Records gets an article. Notability is not inherited from associations. Notability must be made clear for each subject separately. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All relevant content is already on subsidiary article where it can and should remain unless said content gets too substantial to remain there. When and if that happens, a spinout can be discussed on the talk page (with a section summarising the spun out content still left on that article). Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arches Local

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

Corporate spam for a 3-year-old company, appears to be LLM generated. I don't see any evidence of notability for this company, the references seem to consist entirely of primary sources and press releases. MediaKyle (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. MediaKyle (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyard

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for a software company, zero evidence of notability. Neither of the two references present do anything for GNG. A search for "Vidyard" turns up nothing except for a few press releases. MediaKyle (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CloudMask

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

This article is a brochure for this data privacy company established in 2013. The references entirely consist of primary sources and press releases - my own search has turned up virtually nothing. I do not believe that CloudMask meets the notability guidelines for corporations. MediaKyle (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cube (software company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, there are no sources with in-depth independent analysis of the company. To satisfy WP:NCORP, a company needs to have multiple reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, and these sources should not just regurgitate press releases, company announcements (including product announcements), executive interviews, or whatever else the company has to say about itself. At best, there are two TechCrunch pieces with a minimal amount of independent analysis, and maybe a VentureBeat piece if you're being generous. Refer to the below source analysis, which includes the article's current sources plus one other source I found. It does not include masters' theses, which are considered unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://venturebeat.com/business/salesforce-slack-mashup-signals-the-rise-of-deep-collaboration			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/business/return-to-work-office-plans.html	Merely paraphrases the CEO's thoughts as one of many CEOs that were interviewed			✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/battery-ventures-backed-cube-in-30m-round-pitch-deck-2022-6	Routine fundraising coverage			✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/13/cube-closes-5m-seed-round-to-scale-its-financial-planning-software/	~ Relies almost entirely on an interview with the CEO; a tiny amount of independent analysis, see also WP:TECHCRUNCH			~ Partial
https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/15/cube-which-wants-to-help-finance-teams-plan-better-and-faster-lands-30m-after-seeing-a-400-growth-in-arr/	Routine fundraising coverage with some paraphrasing of executives, no independent analysis			✘ No
https://venturebeat.com/business/cube-software-raises-10-million-to-take-on-legacy-financial-planning-and-analytics-tools	~ Routine fundraising news with some paraphrasing of the CEO, minimal independent analysis			~ Partial
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/09/cube-raises-10m-more-to-help-companies-plan-their-financial-future/	~ Routine fundraising news with some paraphrasing of the CEO, small amount of independent analysis			~ Partial
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/07/startups-reckoning-with-an-end-to-cheap-capital-face-hard-decisions-.html	Relies entirely on an interview with the CEO with no independent analysis of the company			✘ No
https://www.cfodive.com/news/cube-taps-workday-alum-drive-tech-finance-synergy-20m-funding/710751/	Relies entirely on an interview with the new executive with no independent analysis of the company			✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/lists/americas-best-startup-employers/			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20250907153223/https://www.inc.com/best-workplaces/2025			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.cfodive.com/news/cube-ceo-serial-cfo--automation-recession-fpa/633632/	Relies entirely on an interview with the CEO, no independent analysis			✘ No
https://www.americanbanker.com/payments/news/what-the-market-slump-means-for-payments-tech			Quote from the CEO, no coverage of the company itself	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Strategic_Innovation_and_Sustainable_Cus/3EuGEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22cube+software%22+%22financial%22&pg=PA127&printsec=frontcover		IGI Global is a predatory publisher		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cube meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP (WP:ORGCRIT): there is multiple, independent and reliable coverage about company across several years. Business Insider (June 2022) - The piece is not a one-line funding note. It includes and analyzes the company’s pitch deck and details what the product is, who uses it, company future plans. That is WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEP and WP:RS.

TechCrunch (2022, 2020, 2021) - 2022 story discusses the business, market, and customers in addition to the Series round. The 2020 and 2021 articles are written as usual TechCrunch reportage, not Q&A, interview or sponsored content, Articles covered the product, model, competitors, and traction. This is exactly the sort of "depth" envisioned by WP:CORPDEPTH and again passes WP:SIGCOV.

VentureBeat articles [1]; [2] covers the founding story, competitors/market landscape, the problem space, and future roadmap. That addresses the "it’s just funding news" see WP:NOTNEWS not all news is routine.

CNBC - Mainstream, general-audience business coverage adds breadth and reliability, i.e., not a narrow echo chamber of startup trade blogs.

Soimuldacic (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Agha Company

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

Corporate spam, declined as G11. Not seeing the notability here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Al-Agha. -- MediaKyle (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Egypt. MediaKyle (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Abdelnasser Abdelfattah is related to this article and should probably also be deleted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the claims in article and the provided sources are ridiculous; the company does not seem to be listed on the London Stock Exchange and is definitely not in the FTSE 100 Index. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navrattan Group

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Engineering, Environment, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaipur Watch Company

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Rajasthan. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aziro

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty Mart

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Gujarat. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Home Loan

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Haryana. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keyzar Jewelry

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

Fails WP:NCORPS. Lacking significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and New York. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability; no independent coverage besides trivial mentions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant, in-depth coverage of this company can be found in several reliable sources that are entirely independent of the company. The current sources are inadequate. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lenskart

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost by blocked user of previously deleted and salted material. Sources are almost entirely routine coverage of funding rounds, interviews with the founders, or otherwise lacking in independent content. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who created this article has been blocked, and it is entirely ROUTINE. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For more context on the history of this article, it was accepted through AfC after approval by the administrator who deleted it (DGG).

[3] is definitely SIRS coverage. Website is bylined, has editors/editorial policy [4], and the idea that this story is routine or consists of interview content is absurd. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

[5], another reliable sources with a byline, editorial policy and has substantive critical analysis. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

There is even coverage in academic contexts, e.g. here [6]. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

And in this book Breaking the Mould by two economists published by Penguin Random House, [7]. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓ Katzrockso (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More academic research I found in a five-second google scholar search [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I find it strains credulity to think that every single of these plus the many other mentions I found are all unreliable. Katzrockso (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources found by Katzrockso seem good, with the exception of the first source, describing a legal dispute, which does not count towards NCORP per WP:ILLCON. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per the sources and academic research cited by Katzrockso, the subject satisfies WP:NCORP. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoodBarber

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFTWARE, and/or WP:NWEB due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cited Newsweek article (ref 6) is clearly marked as a "sponsor" post and the Forbes contributor article (ref 10) is unreliable as a self-published source per WP:FORBESCON. The Mashable article (refs 2 and 11) lists this website as one of "10 excellent platforms for building mobile apps".

As far as French-language coverage cited in the article, I am seeing the same reliabilty issues with those sources. For example, the Nice-Matin article (ref 1) is labelled as "sponsored by Bpifrance" (sponsorisé par Bpifrance); coincidentally, Bpifrance.fr is cited in ref 3. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and France. Bridget (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern World Airlines

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV most sources are blogs, company records or self published and key claims especially allegations about CEO are not reliably sourced. The subject likely does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 12:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I notice significant cleanup of the article since this nomination. The airline existed before the internet era, so most sources will not be online. I notice two such references to the National Business Review, which is certainly a reliable source. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald might be available through the Wikipedia Library.-Gadfium (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The coverage is mostly weak in regards to WP:GNG, but it might just be enough. For example, disregarding the sources in the article, there are at least 142 words of coverage on page 58 in this Foreign Trade article; some coverage of unkown length on pages 31, 42, and 43 in an article from Aircraft & Aerospace, and a 268-word article from The Press. The article already cites a piece of WP:SIGCOV, and although it is a blog, it appears to be a respected blog that has been cited in numerous publications [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The author also appears to be respected and well known in New Zealand's media: [23][24][25][26][27] The article was also republished by the Aviation Historical Society of New Zealand. So all in all, this article is usable and furthers the notion that this airline is notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Advisor Solutions

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

I don't believe this is notable enough. References mostly passing mentions, not enough in depth coverage. Editor has COI with company. Mostly promotional. Equine-man (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Nebraska. jolielover♥talk 09:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write neutrally and put it through the article verification process as per the COI guidelines I found. What changes would be helpful to recommend to help the article be more neutral and notable? Cstills (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's funny, on your User page you stated:

"I am an employee of Orion Advisor Solutions, and as part of my role, I am working to ensure that Wikipedia articles related to Orion are accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. I understand Wikipedia’s policies on COI, neutrality, and verifiability and will not make direct edits to pages related to my employer. Instead, I will suggest changes on article Talk pages for independent editors to review."

49 minutes later your create an article about your employer. Equine-man (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft and submitted it for review. From the guidelines on COI disclosures, I thought that if I disclosed my COI, created a draft version of the page, and then put it through for an editor to review that was the process to help manage the COI. If I misinterpreted that, I apologize — I thought that I was adhering to the guidelines.

Can you advise me on the right way to suggest an article is created when I have a disclosed COI? Cstills (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability front, I was looking at a couple of other organizations within our industry (Cetera and SS&C Technologies) as references for what may have qualified as noteworthy and to get a structure to follow. Cstills (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addatimes

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

Fails in WP:NCORP owing to failed WP:SIRS, WP:VRS and no CORPDEPTH. A complete WP:PROMO - I failed to find independent, secondary references from reliable sources covering this. Although I tried to fix this a few months back but that doesn't appear to be fruitful. A redirect to its parent company Surinder Films could be an WP:ATD. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, India, and West Bengal. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surinder Films for now, we're not a program guide. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surinder Films — sources are promotional releases and marketing blurbs. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gfinity

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

I'm unconvinced that WP:CORP is met - the coverage I can find is either in niche esports publications (reliability uncertain and likely churnalism) or relating to investing i.e. WP:CORPTRIV. SmartSE (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Sports, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage that I have found is either routine business coverage, lacking in depth, or not independent of the subject (many CEO quotes or info from press releases). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helcim

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

This small online payments processing company was only founded in 2006. I don't believe the sources present in the article satisfy the depth required for articles about companies, and this is effectively a brochure. As one might expect, the article is a typical summary of funding rounds and a description of their products, nothing that makes an encyclopedia article. MediaKyle (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

The fact that Helcim was founded in 2006 does not affect its notability. A company’s age is not a determining factor on Wikipedia.

Independent media have written about Helcim because of its growing success in the fintech

BetaKit, a well-known independent tech outlet, has covered Helcim several times. Its reporting on Helcim’s 2024 funding round discussed how the company positioned itself as a transparent, merchant-focused alternative to larger processors and how it planned to expand into the U.S.

There's a piece about Helcim’s partnership with Verizon. His article explored what the deal means for both companies, how Helcim’s platform differs from other fintech models, and why the partnership is significant for its U.S. growth.

Helcim has received national recognition through The Globe and Mail’s 2025 Top Growing Companies list and Waterstone Human Capital’s Canada’s Most Admired Corporate Cultures program.

TheDocOck (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. Helcim meets the notability guidelines. There are several reliable, independent sources that cover the company’s growth, strategy, and expansion in meaningful depth.

The fact that Helcim was founded in 2006 does not affect its notability. A company’s age is not a determining factor on Wikipedia. What matters is the depth and independence of coverage, which Helcim has received from reputable outlets.

Over the years, independent media have written about Helcim because of its growing success in the Canadian fintech scene, not as promotional pieces. Avenue Calgary ran a feature on founder Nic Beique and the company’s rise from a small local startup to a national player. The story looked at its role in Calgary’s tech sector and how it built its team and technology base locally.

BetaKit, a well-known independent tech outlet, has also covered Helcim several times. Its reporting on Helcim’s 2024 funding round discussed how the company positioned itself as a transparent, merchant-focused alternative to larger processors and how it planned to expand into the U.S.

More recently, journalist Robert Lewis wrote a detailed piece about Helcim’s partnership with Verizon. His article explored what the deal means for both companies, how Helcim’s platform differs from other fintech models, and why the partnership is significant for its U.S. growth.

On top of that, Helcim has received national recognition through The Globe and Mail’s 2025 Top Growing Companies list and Waterstone Human Capital’s Canada’s Most Admired Corporate Cultures program. Both are established, independent business rankings.

The article itself is neutral and factual, summarizing Helcim’s verified history and recognition. It may still be improved for tone and structure, but the range and quality of independent coverage already show that Helcim is notable and merits a standalone article. TheDocOck (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree that the current sourcing is inadequate. I've found some better sources, but I don't know if they sum up to a pass:

- Review in PCMag [28]

- Another review in Techradar [29]

- Some (passing, arguably) coverage in a CBC piece [30]

- Coverage in the Calgary Herald ('local business' section, so perhaps too local [31]

Ascelyn (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the previous AFD was a bit of a sockfest, second nom, let's go: ORGCRIT covers in significantly more depth what should and should not be considered "directly and in detail" and "independent of the subject". The criteria themselves are, however, identical to GNG so I would challenge the assertion that it passes GNG with those sources. I probably spent more time than I really should have on this, so I won't do all of the sources I've looked at right now, just those in the article, but I will add up to three per person on reasonable request.

Extended content

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
vsaraogi (2021-06-15). "Crypto-based neobroker Change valued at $214m after closing oversubscribed crowdfund round". FinTech Global. Retrieved 2023-10-11.		– No evidence it is, but	quickfail funding announcement minimal additional detail anyway
Tucker, Charlotte (2021-06-15). "Tallinn-based Change, a cryptocurrency investing platform for retail investors, closes €3.7 million crowdfund". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2023-10-11.		–	again, near carbon copy of the same talking points
"Megadiili katkemine: Eesti ettevõtja loobus 50 miljonist eurost" [Megadeal collapse: Estonian entrepreneur gives up 50 million euros]. Eesti Ekspress (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.	My favourite quote from this one is „See oleks olnud läbi aegade suurim Euroopa ühisrahastusplatvormi exit,“ ütleb Kangro lause, mis ilmselt pärineb avaldamata jäänud pressiteatest. Lol. Lmao even.		standard founder interview stuff.
"Eestlaste krüptoraha platvorm Change sai investoritelt 3,7 miljonit eurot". Äripäev (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11. "Tallinn-based crypto investment platform Change closes €3.7 million crowdfunding round, now valued at €175 million". Tech.eu. 2021-06-15. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			look, how many times are we going to have the same press release?
"Eesti krüptoekspert: tervitame Suurbritannia otsust tuntud krüptoplatvorm kinni panna, sest nad vilistavad kõikidele Euroopa seadustele" [Estonian crypto expert: We welcome the UK's decision to close a well-known crypto platform because they flout all European laws]. Ärileht (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.	no part of this says "we are going to talk about this company"
"How low will bitcoin go? 'Crunch time' for cryptocurrency as analysts predict 2019 price". The Independent. 2018-12-13. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			literally just a single quote. there is nothing here.
"Riding cryptocurrencies to become a major bank". CNBC. 18 December 2017. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			no idea why this uses flash but fairly sure it's just an interview
"Kristjan Kangro - Fintech Finance". ffnews.com. Retrieved 2023-10-11.		The company is literally called, Advertainment Media, enough said. They don't even try to hide it.
Pullerits, Priit (2020-10-24). "Vennad, kes kaklesid, ehitavad nüüd ükssarvikuid". leht.postimees.ee. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	Seems like an interview to me but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
"This Singapore blockchain startup wants to replace banks; has raised over US$15M in ICO to do so". theindependent.sg. 2017-10-13. Retrieved 2023-10-11.		I don't think e27 is a suitable source and will die on this hill. Other criteria probably fail as well, but this is the one I'm picking.
"Funderbeam". www.funderbeam.com. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	company profile on trading platform meets zero of the criteria
andero (2018-07-02). "Estonia is striving to be center stage in cryptocurrencies and blockchain". Invest in Estonia. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	Fairly sure "being the government agency of trying to get you to invest in this company" counts as "having a conflict of interest in this company" by NCORP standards.
"Change gets USD 17.5 million from community to create bank of the future". thepaypers.com. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			Funding announcement
"Eestlased ehitavad maailma suurimat krüptopanka". Äripäev (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.	This is obviously an interview
Sainul. "Singapore's community-led crypto-fintech startup Change raises US$17.5M via tokens sale". e27. Retrieved 2023-10-11.		same as previous, I refuse to accept e27 as a source on wikipedia.
"Ettevõtja üldandmed". mtr.ttja.ee. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
"Change'i osakuga toimus split". Äripäev (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.			There is zero evidence there is anything in here beyond the announcement
"Estonian founded fintech Change secures €2 million to further expand crypto investment app". Tech.eu. 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			different press release to previous tech.eu, but just the REFBOMB has every press release ever put out by the company doesn't mean press releases are significant coverage.
Taremäe, Liisi (2022-06-14). "Change changes the way you buy and sell assets". Invest in Estonia. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	same as previous Invest in Estonia
"Krüptoidu Change kaasas 2 miljonit eurot". 7 March 2023.			I am "beginning" to suspect this article may be citing press releases
"Change libises Kristjan Kangro käest uuele suuromanikule. Investor: mõru tunne on!". Äripäev (in Estonian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.
"Swiss-based firm Andromeda Capital buys majority stake in Change Group". Tech.eu. 2023-08-22. Retrieved 2023-10-11. Marzo, Stefano De (2023-08-23). "Amsterdam-based fintech Change sells majority stake to Swiss private equity firm Andromeda Capital". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2023-10-11.			same as previous from these publications
"Swiss private equity firm Andromeda Capital Partners Suisse AG acquires majority stake in Amsterdam's Change Group \| Silicon Canals". 2023-08-22. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	Ad
"Dutch-Estonian fintech Change is acquired by Andromeda Capital". AIN.Capital. Retrieved 2023-10-11.	besides being an announcement,	– I don't think this should be considered an RS

I have reviewed Estonian news sources that are free from the national library, but I don't want to format the table for them so I won't unless I'm asked about a specific one. Pinging Pelmeen10 and PhotographyEdits as the non-sock participants, I think one delete supporter and one keep supporter is fairly balanced notification-wise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Estonia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An exceptionally well-crafted nomination. We have no room for more brochures on Wikipedia. MediaKyle (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is indeed some exceptional work for an AfD nom! Thanks. I vaguely remembered something about this and it seems I was the opener of the previous AfD. I am not changing my opinion on this one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Source assessment table looks good and accurate. Fade258 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangomint

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

Fails WP:NCORP. To satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline, a company needs to have multiple reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, and these sources should not just regurgitate press releases, company announcements (including product announcements), executive interviews, or whatever else the company has to say about itself.

The mention in "Best Workplaces 2025" fails WP:ORGTRIV. Every other source in the article relies almost entirely on company announcements and interviews with executives, failing WP:ORGIND. I couldn't find any better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Software, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the TechCrunch sources satisfy GNG, per WP:TECHCRUNCH, Los Angeles Business Journal probably constitutes routine/local coverage. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Typical company spam. Does not satisfy the depth of sourcing required for articles about companies. MediaKyle (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article currently fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The existing sources (TechCrunch, Los Angeles Business Journal, Inc.) provide only routine funding and recognition coverage without substantial independent analysis. The topic may become notable in the future if more in-depth sources emerge, but as it stands, notability is not demonstrated. SanneMonte (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiral Photonics

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

This is a promotional one-sheet for a company called Chiral Photonics. Cleanup to make the one-sheet encyclopedic is impossible with the current selection of sources which are a list of patent applications and scientific papers in which the company's inventions are tangentially mentioned. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find anything redemptive. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article is primarily based on self-published and technical sources without independent, in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.SanneMonte (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Express

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

This is an article on an airline that operated one aircraft for one week in 2010. All sources in the article, reliable though they may be, are clustered inside a 51-day period, indicating the airline's creation and demise was covered only by routine news, and is not enduringly appropriate for an encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWS. A standard WP:BEFORE fails significant redemption. (A possible redirect to Martin Halstead could be appropriate, though merging is of doubtful utility as anything relevant is already at the target and other items are of such nuance they'd be inappropriate.) Chetsford (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect to Martin Halstead, the airline's founder (if he is notable).Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LightInTheBox

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Lexiconaut (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lexiconaut (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note several editors of this article have been blocked for spam or undisclosed paid editing or vandalism. For example, Akshsyw8383, Chenge.0092, DarleneWu, Ottawahitech. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. References seem to suggest WP:MILL as they're mainly WP:ROUTINE coverage. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As presented fails WP:NCORP with poor referencing. I am prepared to change my mind if WP:HEY is performed 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wang, Yuhang 王宇航 (2016-01-09). Guo, Yichen 郭一晨 (ed.). "兰亭集势前路微光：内部动乱对手挤压" [Light Fades on LightInTheBox's Path Ahead: Internal Turmoil and Rival Pressure]. 商界评论 [Business Review] (in Chinese). ISSN 1008-1313. Archived from the original on 2025-11-08. Retrieved 2025-11-08 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "然而，久违的好消息并不能扭转兰亭集势持续下滑的颓势，增长乏力、内部动乱、对手挤压……曾经的明星公司兰亭集势正陷入一场危机。成立于2007年3月的兰亭集势，是一个纯外语的跨境购物网站。其基本商业模型是：跨国B2C的商业模式，通过推广，用支付，用UPS和DHL发货，主要面对北美和欧洲市场。兰亭集势2013年成功登陆纽约交易所，号称“中国外贸电商第一股”，是国内众多跨境电商曾经艳羡的对象。短短两年，这家明星公司如何从跨境电商的王座滑落？"
  From Google Translate: "However, the long-awaited good news couldn't reverse LightInTheBox's continued decline. Sluggish growth, internal turmoil, and pressure from competitors... the once-star company LightInTheBox is facing a crisis. Founded in March 2007, LightInTheBox is a purely foreign-language cross-border shopping website. Its basic business model is a cross-border B2C business model, using promotion, payment methods, and UPS and DHL for shipping, primarily targeting the North American and European markets. LightInTheBox successfully listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2013, hailed as "China's first foreign trade e-commerce stock," and was once the envy of many domestic cross-border e-commerce companies. How did this star company fall from its throne in cross-border e-commerce in just two years?"
2. Lowry, Susan; Kempton, Mitchell; Hammond, John B. (2014-09-01). "Spotlight on LightInTheBox". The International Technology Management Review. 4 (3). Atlantis Press: 133–141. doi:10.2991/itmr.2014.4.3.2. ISSN 2213-7149.
  The abstract notes: "In 2007, LightInTheBox.com opened an online shop selling predominantly customized event dresses made by suppliers offering value for money and true sizing. Its early success made expansion into other product offerings possible and today revenue is approximately US$292M. Can LITB sustain this growth? Where will this small medium enterprise in China be in 2020? Western society see expansion into China as a growth market however China is closing that market with its own businesses competing against the western companies. Who will succeed in this highly competitive market."
3. Su, Jia; Zha, Lijing; Zhang, Yan; Liu, Xuanchen; Liu, Shiduo (2022). "The Evaluation of Economic Management in the Field of Cross-border E-commerce". In Khan, Syed; Jhanjhi, Noor Zaman; Li, Hongbo (eds.). 2022 2nd International Conference on Management Science and Software Engineering (ICMSSE 2022). Vol. 12. Dordrecht: Atlantis Press. p. 656. doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-056-5_95. ISBN 978-94-6463-056-5. ISSN 2731-7900. Retrieved 2025-11-08 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In terms of profitability, LightInTheBox and Anker Innovations are strongly innovative ... The return on equity and gross profit margin on sales of LightInTheBox is remarkable, indicating that the enterprise has the best investment return. ... And the solvency of KJTONG, Tianze, Guangbo and LightInTheBox is at a medium level ... In terms of operating ability, LightInTheBox has the strongest operating ability. It not only has a good performance in profitability, but also shows a fast asset turnover speed and a high asset utilization ratio in operating ability. ... As for growth ability, ... Anker and LightInTheBox are intermediate ... What’s more, three companies, KJTONG, Guangbo and LightInTheBox, obtain the synthesis score also excellently, which indicates that the overall economic management of the market is relatively intense. However, the operating ability of these 7 enterprises is commonly low."
4. Yovanno, David A. (2022). The Partnership Economy: How Modern Businesses Find New Customers, Grow Revenue, and Deliver Exceptional Experiences. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-1-119-81970-7. Retrieved 2025-11-08 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "LightInTheBox is a global online retail company that delivers products directly to consumers around the world. Founded in 2007, LightInTheBox offers customers a convenient way to shop for a wide selection of lifestyle products at attractive prices (Figure 7.2). The brand saw the value of influencers, but could only execute 10–20 placements a month given how time-consuming it was to find, recruit, negotiate, track, and aggregate them. It wanted to grow its program globally, but needed to do so in a scalable fashion. By using automation technology, LightInTheBox automated its recruiting, negotiation, tracking, and aggregation. That helped the brand build a program that generated more than 200 placements a month and leveraged influencer-generated assets across social media, email, and the website's product pages. As a result, Light-InTheBox saw better content, lower costs, and higher engagement. Conversion rates were up 15 percent on product pages enriched with influencers' content compared to the same product pages without enrichment."
5. Barris, Michael (2013-08-29). "LightInTheBox: suit "without merit"". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-11-08. Retrieved 2025-11-08.
  The article notes: "A class-action lawsuit alleging that online retailer LightInTheBox artificially inflated the value of its shares on the New York Stock Exchange before they plunged on a disappointing revenue outlook is "without merit," the company said, and it promised to "vigorously defend itself." ... The suit against LightInTheBox comes nearly three months after its initial public offering raised $79 million and ended a seven-month drought of new US stock-market listings by Chinese companies. ... At LightInTheBox's IPO, the first by a China-based company in the US since social-gaming operator YY Inc went public in November, Guo rang the NYSE closing bell."
6. Barris, Michael (2013-06-07). "LightInTheBox makes robust IPO". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-01-06. Retrieved 2025-11-08.
  The article notes: "Ending a seven-month drought of initial public offerings in the United States for Chinese companies, online retailer LightInTheBox made a solid public market debut Thursday in its first trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ... The IPO raised $79 million and marked the company's initial market value at $465 million. LightInTheBox sells inexpensive Chinese-made goods like fishing rods and wedding dresses to customers mostly in other countries, often with free shipping. ... Jim Fink, an analyst for Investing Daily, an online investment advice website, told China Daily recently that he expected investors to warm to the offering, particularly because LightInTheBox generates 85 percent of its revenue in North America and Europe, where accounting procedures are more likely to satisfy US regulators."
7. Huang, Bing 黄彬; Wang, Qin 王磬 (2016). "大型电子商务企业物流管理现状分析与对策——以兰亭集势公司为例认领" [Analysis and Countermeasures of Logistics Management in Large E-commerce Enterprises: A Case Study of LightInTheBox]. 技术与市场 [Technology and Market] (in Chinese). No. 11. pp. 150, 152. ISSN 1006-8554. Retrieved 2025-11-08 – via CQVIP.
  The abstract notes: "通过兰亭集势的采购物流,存储物流以及销售物流三个方面,对兰亭集势公司物流管理现状问题及解决对策进行了探讨。"
  From Google Translate: "This paper explores the current status, problems, and solutions of LightInTheBox's logistics management from three aspects: procurement logistics, storage logistics, and sales logistics."
8. Li, Bing 李冰; Gong, Yongqin 弓永钦 (2014). "跨境电子商务企业的战略成本分析——以兰亭集势公司为例" [An Analysis on the Strategic Cost of Cross-border E-commerce Enterprises——Take "Light In The box" as an Example]. 北京劳动保障职业学院学报 [Journal of Beijing Vocational College of Labour and Social Security] (in Chinese). No. 3. pp. 42–45. ISSN 1008-6684. Archived from the original on 2025-11-08. Retrieved 2025-11-08 – via CQVIP.
  The abstract notes: "跨境电子商务是国际贸易中的新形式。我国成功上市企业兰亭集势公司在其跨境电商运营过程中有许多经验值得借鉴分享。分析其战略定位和价值链,深入解析其结构性成本动因和执行性成本动因,兰亭集势取得成功的核心要素是领导团队的电商思维、系列战略思想及企业对战略成本的控制管理技术方法。"
  From the translation: "Cross-border e-commerce is a new form of international trade. "Light In The box", an enterprise that has successfully gone public in China, offers lessons worth considering in business operation of cross-border e-commerce. By analyzing its strategic orientation and value chain, exploring its structural cost and executive cost drivers, the keys to "Light In The box"＇s success could fall in its leader team's ecommerce thinking method, a series of strategic thoughts and the technical methods of controlling and managing the strategic cost."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LightInTheBox (simplified Chinese: 兰亭集势; traditional Chinese: 蘭亭集勢) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pylon (company)

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Moved second time to mainspace by an editor who has not answered the formal questions about paid editing (now asked for a second time) - likely UPE. Improperly sourced, WP:ROTM sourcing about funding in the main. Fails WP:NCORP, is WP:ADMASQ. Two major instances of WP:CITEKILL amounting to WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Doesn't WP:DRAFTOBJECT allow controversial draftification if the other editor has a COI, or is that only in confirmed, declared COI cases? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28 My interpretation is that it must either be self declared or that warning level 4 must be exceeded to allow a unilateral draftification under DRAFTOBJECT. This is part of AGF in my view. I may be mistaken, or I might have invoked WP:IAR, but I chose AfD. I am happy to be corrected. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't have much experience in this area so thought I'd ask anyway.

Probably better to get some kind of consensus decision from AfD anyway that will prevent the article simply being moved back to mainspace again if it is draftified. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of WP:DRAFTOBJECT says: This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time.. The wording of that guideline is ambiguous as to whether an article may be moved back to draft space twice if it was moved back to article space by a COI editor. However, moving it back to draft space a second time will likely result in a move war in which it is moved back and forth two or three or four times, and that is at least as bad as an edit war. It is better to avoid a move war by starting a consensus process of AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly checked this article and here are my findings:

1. Lacks significant independent coverage.

2. Sources lack depth; the references are mostly from trade publications and lack depth.

3. Promotional and primary sources.

4. Non-neutral point of view.

Please check the "Company culture" section.

I suggest deletion. GreenRedFlag (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure spam. There's no need to draftify this, as there is slim chance it will ever be legitimately accepted at Articles for Creation. We have no room for any more brochures on Wikipedia. MediaKyle (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are at least two reasons to delete or draftify, one of which is a reason to delete. The reason to delete or draftify is that the article does not speak for itself. It does not state how the company passes corporate notability because it does not describe significant coverage by independent sources. The reason to delete is that it can reasonably be presumed to be the work of undisclosed paid editing, since the author did not answer that question. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article relies mostly on routine coverage, funding announcements, and interviews with company executives, failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The promotional tone and repeated draftification suggest possible WP:UPE involvement. No significant independent or in-depth sources found. – SanneMonte (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Entertainment

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

I do think that this film financing arm of the private investment management firm Domain Capital Group is particularly notable for its own article. The "key people" are Pete Chiappetta, Andrew Lary, and Anthony Tittanegro. There are two sources that list the studios that partnered with Domain for financing. This is different than a similar company (Access Entertainment) that has a long verifiable/reputable history and notable people that own it. [Red links left in intentionally.] Mike Allen 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. Mike Allen 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two decent sources used, the article could use more, but it would seem to be notable. Involved in the production of many large movies from major studios. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a production company and not involved in the films they fund. They are a private equity firm that fund films, since 2022. Those are really the only two sources about this company. Mike Allen 14:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, RatPac Entertainment only financed movies, and yet it has its own article. TSG Entertainment also only finances movies, yet it has its own article, too. I don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST? Mike Allen 02:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 companies do–or in RatPac's case, did–the same thing, finance movies, and yet no one complained when the other 2 companies got their own pages. I still don't see how Domain would be different or an exception. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are more notable than Domain (looking at their articles you can see this). Same with Access, like I noted. We are going off of 2 sources from the last 4 years. You have been one of the users that has spammed this and other companies into film info boxes for years. So your !vote is not surprising since it seems you still have not grasped Wikipedia’s polices and guidelines. Mike Allen 13:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This mentions Domain Entertainment in a paragraph, but otherwise, I don't see the trade papers mentioning Domain Entertainment beyond just naming it as one of the companies involved with a film (like in a review). I think Domain Capital Group should just be created and Domain Entertainment redirected to that, seeing more substance here and here, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praktika (software)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Also, entirely promotional and no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Companies, Artificial intelligence, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complies with WP:NORG as 24 independent reference sources are provided as of today's date Alice8961 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also seems like it complies with WP:SUSTAINED notability as the company got mentioned in several independent education lists and ranks in top 5 free apps, top 5 grossing apps and top 3 featured apps in the category of language learning according to AppMagic https://appmagic.rocks/top-charts/apps?date=2025-10-01&tag=36 Alice8961 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - refbombing the article does not establish notability. Coverage of fundraising for startups is just run of the mill new reporting. The rest of the sources are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA/TOOSOON. Quick search seems to confirm that the CORPROUTINE funding announcements seems to be all that is out there. Quantity doesn't matter if none of the sources actually meet the criteria (I would say, counts against the topic, even). Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Networks

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP, no suitable sources found during BEFORE Meadowlark (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. Meadowlark (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agile Networks... I've seen worse. Way worse. Whoever wrote the article did a good job to adapt the text to a professional standard of language. But Agile Networks fails WP:NCORP as suggested by the proponent, mainly through its sources. Wikipedia "bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product". All of the sources I examined were either press releases or promotional ads from the company. The Fingal County Enterprise Board seems to tell a believable story of an acquisition from one company to another in Ireland and how six job categories were saved at the time. Anyone can file for an article revival should the company meet WP:NCORP in the future. User:Deathnotekll2
Delete per nom and Deathnotekll2. Spleodrach (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Lf8u2 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackery

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

Redirect to Jacquerie contested, so here we are. Non-notable US power company, undersourced to primary sources, Forbes Sites, LinkedIn and the usual low level corporate desperation sources. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Would accept redirect per consensus but note it's not a perfect target so, failing that, deletion would be appropriate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are multiple reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company, such as TechCrunch, and RetailBanker. These demonstrate enduring notability per WP:GNG. Kyunde (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase? Just wondering... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels like WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's of Wick

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nominator mass nominated a large group of articles with no WP:BEFORE check, as evidence by the fact that multiple nominations were produced per minute from 9:29-9:34 UTC, 9:43-9:48 UTC, 9:58-10:06 UTC. This places an undue burden upon editors at AfD who are required to perform lengthy searches for sources that the nominator did not in order to evaluate the notability of each article. Many of the existing nominations are factually erroneous and refer to notable bus lines as non-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bus of North Lanarkshire

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste nomination that does not discuss why the cited sources are not valid --Garuda3 (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terravision (Italian company)

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMK Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacking enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability even with additional searching. Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Band

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

Non notable defunct bus company Sugar Tax (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid. --Garuda3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I am seeing multiple returns even from casual searches, however the focus tends to be more about the closure of this long running company, than about the bus company specifically. Willing to change votes, if reasons can be pointed out why the sources would be SIGCOV. Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, WP:ROTM run of the mill not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AstralShiftPro

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

The only SIGCOV I can find about this company is an interview, so it appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirecting to Little Goody Two Shoes (video game) is a potential WP:ATD given that it appears to be their only standalone notable product. Notability is not inherited from that game, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hect

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

Lack of independent sigcov. Most sources are for Moon Crystal instead of the company itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this should likely be a page on Moon Crystal instead of a page on Hect. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. Cards on the table: this absolutely fails WP:N as written. However, there is traditionally some tolerance for navigational-level articles that are akin to categories or outlines. Hect might not be relevant, but some sort of listing article that verifies they ported Formation Z, etc. (notable games) and lets a reader find other games ported by this mysterious company is acceptable. (Note: I checked the JP article, but it doesn't seem to have particularly useful references either, alas.) SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hect games lists their notable games. Also there are pages like List of Nintendo Entertainment System games which list their work (including Formation Z). --Mika1h (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely cover the same content with both a category and a list. SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Turner Broadcasting. Selectively, subject to local consensus. Sandstein 08:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System

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

This article is largely a WP:CONTENTFORK of an isolated incident of a company with lots of history going defunct after a buyout. All of this information of the dissolution of Turner Broadcasting System is adequately covered at that company's page, and this fork article attempts to pinpoint select parts of that company's history and the fate of its assets together to justify its existence. Such "dissolution" articles are typically only warranted for regime changes, ie, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and not business decisions, especially when they lack much sourcing and any critical commentary or analysis of any potential impact this decision may have had. Not everything needs its own article, and I would think many readers would expect to read more about this company's fate in the article about the company itself, not a spin-off one that is probably not as easily found or sought after. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Events, Business, and Companies. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Pretty redundant to main article, obviously no need for separate page. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agreed. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge This is something you'd expect to find on Wikia, not here, many items are unsourced or of no layperson interest (when they stopped using trademarks in quarterly reports and a lot of weasel words to make Turner look like it was being taken over by an amoral corporation), and most of all this is a good-faith deal, not at all comparable to some company taking over and leaving the other dry (AT&T/Cingular), especially over a near thirty year-period. This is a very WP:MILL slow absorbtion of one company into another and just reads as someone who loved Turner axe-grinding via an article that their favorite company was 'taken out' and mourning about it, which is not an appropriately-toned article at all. Nathannah • 📮 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this discussion open at least for another several days. I'm ging to several rounds of expansion on the page. Maybe the page title can be changed to Breakup of Turner Broadcasting— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFloridaTyper (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @TheFloridaTyper is one of the main contributors to this article and other similar Warner-related articles and drafts, alongside this article's creator, @LarryTheBird2011. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, AfDs are open for a natural period of time to allocate sufficient responses from many volunteer participants. While an article is at AfD, anyone–including yourself–is welcome to edit an article, but such discussions are not stalled or delayed to accommodate said edits. If an article is determined not to meet the given criteria, it may be deleted once enough responses are given in a timely manner. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As much as I'd like for this page to remain, it would seem counterintuitive to keep it, while not covering the dissolution of other companies. It's better to merge the contents of this page with Turner Broadcasting as a heading. Had the dissolution been as monumental as the Bell System breakup, this page could have remained.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFloridaTyper on November 9, 2025

Yeah, the Bell System breakup definitely had a more long-term, historically significant impact on the entire telecom industry, in legal precedent, and beyond. The Turner dissolution is relatively minute in comparison. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bell System breakup Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 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.

Schutte Hammermill

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

Non notable company. No sigcov. Equine-man (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It appears to meet the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) as well as the Notability Guideline for Organizations WP:ORG. The company has received significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, including The Buffalo News and archival publications accessible via Newspapers.com. These sources provide in-depth, non-trivial discussions of the company’s history, operations, and industry relevance—well beyond routine mentions or directory listings.

While additional citation cleanup may improve the article, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and should therefore be kept. Krista.Watson1 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:CORP Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch and Murray Productions

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Draftify on the basis that, with work, notability may be established. This has been moved too soon to mainspace, and the references are mainly information abut productions, and not about M&M productions. Fails WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Theatre, Business, and Canada. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete, and Extended-Confirmed Protect - An article should speak for itself so that a reader will know, on reading the article, how the subject is notable, meaning that the article should identify what the significant coverage is. This page does not (because the author may have been more concerned with getting the article into mainspace than with completing the article). Protect the page so that it only goes back into article space when reviewed by an neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry my previous vote was for a different article and I switched too quickly between windows. I do think this should be deleted, but draftification is suitable and my prior comment doesn't apply. Sorry. SPOOKYDICAE👻 20:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify or Draftify as it can be developed further for the mainspace. Checking the sources, the subject can meet required criteria with more improvements to the draft and a review by a neutral editor.Damiano (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. I don't see anything in the recent version that ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article and draft of an article for Draft:Aaron Craven were created by User_talk:Aaron_Craven, who is named in this article. This is blatant COI. This user needs a COI warning and preferably to no longer make changes to this article. The article reads like an advertisement for the group; it includes reviews of the plays that do not mention M&M. PROMO and COI - it does not belong in main space. Lamona (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamers Guild

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of their games are notable, but that isn't inherited by the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (video game). Most notable product. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

16:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire Studios

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; any sources appear to be only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Australia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balls of Steel (video game). This newspaper article about the making of their first game also talks about the company: [32]. --Mika1h (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

16:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovable (company)

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

Fails WP:NORG at present. Amigao (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ORG/WP:GNG. See following news pieces: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Also already getting mentioned in scholarly works even though it is a young company (granted passing mentions): [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to say that a previous article on this subject, albeit at a slightly different title, was deleted only a few weeks ago, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable. Speaking of different titles, whether due to intentional titlegaming or not, this has gone round the houses: in addition to the current title and Lovable, there has been content at Lovable Labs, Draft:Lovable Labs Inc., Lovable (platform), and possibly elsewhere. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why this was recreated after a recent deletion. Existing coverage is largely routine business coverage + non-independent quoting of CEO/other tech executives. Beyond the Forbes article I don't think the sources provided by 4meter4 meet requirements for WP:NORG and even the forbes article quotes heavily from an interview with the CEO.

TechCrunch Not independent as it is is largely quotes from the CEO/other tech people without little to no independent analysis.
BusinessInsider Not entirely independent as it relies overmuch on quotes from CEO, though there is some added thought about traffic to the app.
bdtechtalks Is a blog post and not great for reliability/verifying independence.
Bloomberg Paywalled, but the opening lines make it clear they're using quotes from the CEO from an appearance on Bloomberg TV so not promising.
euronews Mostly quotes company numbers + talks about routine business (funding rounds). No independent analysis.
thenextweb Routine coverage of business growth with many quotes from CEO and not necessarily independent. Uncertain whether thenextweb is considered reliable either.
Techcrunch 2 Only a passing mention as the article focuses on a different company (Anything)

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the links had pipes preventing them from working; I've removed those. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's transformative text and secondary analysis in many of these. It's not all interviews, so I disagree with your source assessment as entirely failing WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very known vibe coding company (need more sources). Ovedc (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more neutral assessment of sources provided and editor acknowledgement that a previous AFD was about a different subject with a similar name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find Euronews like [48], Bloomberg and other links good for WP:NCORP. While the previous deletion resulted into delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lovable_(company) I still think there is a chance to grab more clear keep reasons.--Imtisig (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was a clear consensus in the previous deletion discussion and I don't believe that overturning a rough consensus is a good idea. My personal stance on the issue is that this is a pretty minor vibe-coding company and most of the sources are non-independent or quote directly from the CEO Oakchris1955 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leena AI

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

There is no claim to notability per WP:NCORP in the article, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to find any sourcing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Interviews with the founders, press releases, sponsored content, and run-of-the-mill announcements about funding and other everyday activities do not show how the company is notable. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything that wasn't a routine announcement, from the company itself, or a trivial passing mention. The only reference in the list that appears non-trivial and independent is Ref. 21 (the Analytics India Magazine piece) which is about as obvious as churnalism gets. And the first paragraph of the "Services and market" section makes me want to vomit all over my brand-new laptop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one who took the time to research the subject, it does establish WP:ORGDEPTH. It is both the industry-standard Entrepreneur, Forbes, TechCrunch and other publications, which have written rather adequate (in "length") coverages about this corp, as well as the fact that Leena is evidently amongst the world's top handful AI companies in its niche (conversational and/or agentic) in terms of global market reach and product dev. Chelseam5 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look like after today edits, that the sources on the article are both independent and have a significant coverage, establishing that the company itself is notable. Ovedc (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article now satisfies WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Reliable and independent sources such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, Axios, and Computerworld offer in-depth coverage beyond routine funding reports or press releases. The company has demonstrable industry significance within enterprise conversational AI, supported by multiple non-trivial third-party analyses. SanneMonte (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IZ3D

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails to demonstrate significant independent coverage per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most references are bare URLs or press releases, and there is limited evidence of enduring notability beyond product announcements. The company was a short-lived 3D display manufacturer defunct since 2012, with minimal lasting impact on the field. SanneMonte (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that iZ3D received a good amount of attention when its screen was first released given its novelty. Even if it didn't catch on, I think the notability of the unique product stands and this article definitely doesn't suffer from the self-promotion of many org/corp articles. Additional reliable/in depth sources reviewing the product: Gizmodo, PCMag, TechCrunch. There is also a possibility of merging into an article that discusses 3D monitors as an alt to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based mostly on iZ3D Website. Ovedc (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Cloud

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with no significant coverage. A merge to Sakura Spirit, which is notable, may be a viable WP:ATD, but notability is not inherited. There's no real indication the company is standalone notable in any capacity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the page creator, so I'm just stopping by to say I don't contest this AFD. I'm also neutral on a merge to Sakura Spirit versus outright deletion. CurlyWi (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets WP:GNG as multiple independent reliable sources have covered the developer and its games (e.g. Destructoid, MangaGamer, Gamasutra). The studio has released dozens of titles over a decade, indicating lasting significance in the English visual novel market. SanneMonte (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without actually mentioning the sources claimed to exist here, it is just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. Also, "and its games" does not apply here unless there is significant coverage of the developer themselves within that game coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sakura Spirit. Lacks independent sigcov in comparison to the proposed redirect target. Go D. Usopp (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above CabinetCavers (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Any thoughts on Keep and Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxx

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

WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. None of the sources satisfy the standards of WP:ORGTRIV. Most are primary or not reliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). Niafied (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Niafied (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the concern, but if you look at the sources of some of the other Wikipedia articles on venture capital firms, they do tend to be from tech media publications or similar (Tech.eu, TechCrunch etc.) and most of the information in the articles relates to funding rounds which the venture capital firm either raised or contributed to. I would claim that is just the nature of the business and where the most important information on venture capital firms can be found. Some examples: Acton Capital, Newfund, Iris Capital, and many more at List of venture capital firms. Commissaress (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping the page. Plenty of venture capital firms do get signficant coverage in reliable pages. If there are other pages that don't meet those standards, they will likely be nominated for deletion eventually. Since you're being paid for your contributions, you might find it difficult to objectively assess the company's notability. Niafied (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agendrix

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

This appears to be a brochure for a relatively run-of-the-mill company - only been around for ten years, all we have under "History" is your typical funding announcements and subsequent acquisition by The Citation Group. I don't think anything here satisfies the depth of sourcing required. MediaKyle (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only routine business announcements found; fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete globe and mail and similare are definitely routine announcements, nothing to pass NCORP. Never-ending string (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article satisfies WP:ORGCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG, and is fully consistent with WP:NCORP. The company has received significant, independent, and analytical coverage from multiple reliable sources, including L’actualité, La Tribune and Le Nouvelliste. These articles provide in-depth business analysis over several years (2020–2025), which goes well beyond the non understandable “routine announcements” mentioned in the votes above. When the references are actually reviewed, they clearly meet Wikipedia’s sourcing and depth criteria for organizational notability.--Jean-PierreCL (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the 3 sources presented above by Jean-PierreCL , would make the subject notable. RolandSimon (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that Jean-PierreCL is the author of this article. I'm not convinced by the sources presented. MediaKyle (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Suspected sockpuppet involvement was found in previous AfDs. Otherwise, being IPO-bound does not establish notability. Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be treated with caution, as they often reproduce press releases as news (WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE). As of now, the page reads like a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Rajasthan. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is promotionally worded, but the references are all textbook cases of run-of-the-mill coverage. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CarDekho Group is a major Indian auto-tech and fintech firm. It has notable independent sources like:
- Business Standard
- Financial Express
- Financial Express
- Techcrunch etc.

showing the company’s industry impact and notability. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company page looks more like advertisement than information. Every line is sounding like promotion. All the sources used are mostly Indian media which just repeat company press release or funding news. There is no proper research or detailed article from strong global source. Company being IPO-bound or having big valuation does not make it notable automatically. Wikipedia need independent coverage, not paid PR type links. It fails both WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Most articles are like “CarDekho raised fund” or “CarDekho launches new app” this is routine business update, not encyclopedic.--LexyNight (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain which parts of the article you found promotional? If every line is sounding like promotion. Why wasn’t it tagged for G11? Let’s tag it G11 and see if it can be deleted under that, if “every line is sounding like promotion.” It is an Indian company and has operations in India, so obviously it will be covered by Indian media only. How are you expecting coverage from international media? Did you bother to read the detailed report covered by Forbes India, which is an independent and in-depth piece? Have you even done proper research or detailed analysis before commenting here? DJ allu (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned by @Y: in the previous AfD, this is $1.2 billion company and has received substantial coverage from multiple mainstream and independent media outlets, including Forbes 1, Forbes 2, Forbes 3, and Livemint 4 with detailed reporting on its operations and growth. It clearly meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH and promotional wording can be adjusted with edits. DJ allu (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — i see where the nom is coming from, though the evaluation of sources might have been a bit sweeping. The coverage in Forbes and LiveMint isn't really WP:RSNOI material and looks reasonably reliable and substantive for WP:NCORP. Financial Express[49] adds additional depth. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vserv Digital Services

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:00, 29 October 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, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — still tagged for notability since 2015 and nothing in the current sourcing addresses that. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 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.

Log 9 Materials

(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. As of now, the page is a WP:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. subject is a prominent Indian business. Sources include:

Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a "prominent" business in India. As stated in the nomination, sources are just routine business coverage primarily in sources that are unreliable (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Article mainly consists of routine business transactions. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolnetindia.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough in-depth citations WP:CORPDEPTH. Existing Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Infrastructure_Leasing_&_Financial_Services#Group_companies at best. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kissflow

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is met. Forbes [50] old article over 10years ago gives some good coverage on the company (it had the name Orangescape in 2000s). Citation HP engineers Suresh Sambandam and Mani Doraisamy, co-founders of Orangescape, also hit the magic $1 million mark in 2009. Orangescape is a cloud-based platform-as-a-service (PaaS) company from India that facilitates business application development. Orangescape is.. Hindu, Techcrunch also are covering well the company during different time spans. Never-ending string (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single paragraph in Forbes, a passing mention in The Hindu, and routine coverage in TechCrunch don’t satisfy WP:NCORP. I hope the closing admin takes note of the sudden reappearance of dormant account(s) in these AfDs. Yuvaank (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMPIN Energy Transition

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article’s tone is promotional, with sources consisting mostly of routine business announcements such as funding rounds and partnerships with Sumitomo, etc. It also touts statistics and targets (e.g., 25 GW by 2030) sans criticism, and features images scattered across the page (e.g., “CIP Meet” and “Siemens tie-up” promo shots), reinforcing an advertorial feel. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Pandit Deendayal Energy University study provides notable depth and analysis that supports WP:NCORP. though a single analytical source can't establish notability. Most of the remaining coverage appears routine. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SK Finance

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

Going public (IPO) doesn’t constitute a meaningful notability factor. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Rajasthan. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in article are press releases and promotional in nature. Will be happy to see non promotional non primary soruces. Mag2k (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has some coverage in independent business media, but most reporting is limited to financial figures, IPO announcements, or investor funding rounds without in‑depth analysis or feature-length profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have seen multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[51]], [[52]], [[53]] and [[54]] only are enough to establish notability.Omawane (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC) _{Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep Before found a featured article in Business India Magazine with detailed coverage. There is likely more available. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC) _{Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete not meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at all. I checked most sources, all are routine business news like IPO update, fund raise or RBI licence etc or etc.... That is very normal for any NBFC and not deep coverage even the so-called “Bloomberg” or “Moneycontrol” links are mostly reprints of press releases not real independent study or profile... Also company is still private and just planning IPO... that alone not make it notable under WP:LISTED. No independent analysis no major feature article nothing showing long-term importance. Feels more like company profile copied from PR sites... Tone also looks promotional in some parts like “expanding business” and “increasing loan book” etc... not neutral encyclopedic. So overall fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV both. LexyNight (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a long established Indian NBFC founded in 1994 and has grown to over 9,600 employees. Based on the sources identified by editors and listed in the discussion above, there appears to be sufficient coverage to establish notability. Royaltee121 (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC) _{Blocked for UPE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aryavart Bank

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

Non-notable Indian regional bank, actually now amalgamated into Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank. Article history is a hot mess with WP:OWN, Copyvio and other issues, including repeated reversions of redirects. Actually, article content also a hot mess - as is that of the potential redirect target. Until someone can write a decent article on these banks without using an LLM, I'm recommending deletion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank — no clear pass under WP:NCORP. Best to WP:TNT and rebuild if better sources appear. EmilyR34 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may be badly written or a hot mess, but the fix would be to improve it, not delete. It is about the history of a regional bank that amalgamated.

Ankits (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment If you wants to delete this you must also go for the deletion of many articles in indian regional bank which are being defunct on or before may 1 2025 because on may 1 so many regional banks have been amalgamated to form one you must have delete them as well

Ankits (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote. Which one is it going to be? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The subject already merged into Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, so it has no independent notability left... Almost all content is just routine merger info and government notifications, not real secondary coverage. Feels more like history note than full encyclopedic topic. Better to delete or merge as per WP:TNT. LexyNight (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was going to suggest a merge to "Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank", but it's already mentioned there, so I'm not sure what there is to merge. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the citations in with the content, and then redirect. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alkagesta

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

Fails WP:NCORP, No Reliable Sources., The Sources that presented in the article are unreliable. Article needs Reliable Sources and Seconday Sources. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The topic appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There are reliable and independent sources available or can be added that discuss Alkagesta. The article can be improved with citations from books, academic papers, and independent media. Deletion is unnecessary when the article can be improved. JosefBrine (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Sources were press releases and There is no independent coverage of the company to establish its notability. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources presented in the article are entirely press releases, some of which explicitly state "sponsored content", and read as promotional. There is no independent coverage of the company to establish its notability. -- Reconrabbit 13:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my position to keep considering contemporary coverage. -- Recon rabbit 21:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that specific, narrow industry coverage provides sufficient sourcing; the company’s billion-dollar trading volume and global activity may have generated additional notable coverage in regional press elsewhere. Never-ending string (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources and I found a few through google linking the company to oil smuggling and corruption. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely AI-generated citations by User:JosefBrine. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the added citations, even if they were found by LLM, were legitimate and added information not present in the article as it is right now, which seems to have unrelated promotional tone issues. Ex: This MSN article that you removed describes the connection between Alkagesta and Adnan Ahmadzada, who was arrested last month. If that's not enough to establish notability, at the very least this article to redirect to Ahmadzada, who is the subject of a lot of press right now. -- Recon rabbit 21:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above CabinetCavers (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article that failed AfC multiple times as a whitewash/puff piece. The extant sources are almost all niche trade pubs with limited to no wide notability. Further, there appear to be probable COI/PE issues with the editor who created the page...compounding notability problems with biased writing. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCORP via stable continuing coverage of its activities connected to sophisticated operations, CEO's possible arrest in 2025 and the firm’s role in oil smuggling/sanction avoiding. It's also a big part of Malta economy and was widely described by regional news-outlets. --Imtisig (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levuma

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. An online search of this company produces plenty churnalism covering Mariah Carey's jewelry but hardly anything to establish this company's notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article itself has highly promotional tone, but the indepth source in Vogue and mentions in other sources make me think it can be kept, but need to be improved. Mag2k (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The company and its founder were the subject of a full profile feature in Vogue Arabia (October 2025 issue - published written issue) — a Condé Nast publication with recognized editorial standards and independent reporting. This alone demonstrates substantial coverage in a reliable and internationally recognized source.

LEVUMA and its founder were also profiled in Hia Magazine, one of the leading luxury and lifestyle publications in the Middle East, and in Gheir Magazine, further establishing independent media coverage across multiple reputable outlets.

In addition, Solitaire International, a long-established jewellery trade publication published by the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC of India), has also featured the brand — providing additional recognition from a respected industry source.

In addition to these features, the brand’s jewellery was prominently worn by Mariah Carey at the MTV VMAs, with coverage by major international media including People Magazine, InStyle, and CNN, all of which referenced the brand by name.

Taken together, these articles represent significant and independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, fulfilling the requirements of WP:NCORP and confirming the company’s notability within its field.

Links URL of several publications were presented and noted. Jwlryedit (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article has been rewritten in fully neutral, encyclopedic language — it contains no promotional wording and only cites factual, verifiable information supported by independent reliable sources (Vogue Arabia, People, CNN, Hia, Solitaire, etc.). The earlier concern about tone seems to refer to a previous draft. The present version meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines. Jwlryedit (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2614523/lifestyle				✘ No
https://gjepc.org/solitaire/ali-khalil-shaping-levumas-diamond-legacy-a-future-of-excellence/			~ Some details, mostly promotional gibberish	✘ No
https://www.voguearabia.com/article/inside-ali-khalil-sparkling-universe		~	~ Some details, mostly promotional gibberish	~ Partial
https://privatemembersuae.com/2025/09/29/levuma-antwerp-diamonds/	Press release			✘ No
https://people.com/2025-mtv-vmas-mariah-carey-jewelry-over-270-carats-diamonds-11805334				✘ No
https://www.voguearabia.com/article/mariah-carey-mtv-vmas-in-levuma-diamonds			~	~ Partial
https://www.hiamag.com/%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%A9/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/1788922-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D9%87%D9%8A-levuma-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D8%8C-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%90%D8%B1%D9%8E%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9%D8%8C-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%82			~ Some details, mostly promotional gibberish	✘ No
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2018/02/ali-khalil-diamonds-goldman-sachs			~ Some details	? Unknown
https://www.gheir.com/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-levuma-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%89	Link doesn't work			? Unknown
https://www.katerinaperez.com/articles/levuma-diamond-investment-tailor-made-solutions			~ Some details. Mostly promotional gibberish	✘ No
https://www.instyle.com/mariah-carey-vmas-2025-diamonds-plunging-bodysuit-11805144				✘ No
https://graziamagazine.com/me/articles/mtv-music-awards-mariah-carey-10-million-diamonds/				✘ No
https://www.cnn.gr/life/style/story/438912/i-lamperi-emfanisi-tis-maraia-karei-sti-skini-tis-teletis-aponomis-ton-mtv-vmas	Link doesn't work			? Unknown
https://extratv.com/2025/09/08/mariah-carey-glittered-in-10m-worth-of-diamonds-at-the-mtv-vmas/				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for the review.
I would like to respectfully clarify that several of the listed publications are widely recognized as independent and reliable sources under Wikipedia’s own reliability standards:

– Vogue Arabia is part of Condé Nast, one of the world’s most authoritative fashion media groups.

– Hia Magazine, published by Saudi Research and Media Group (SRMG), is the leading Arabic luxury and fashion magazine in the GCC, the same group behind Arab News and Asharq News.

– Gheir is part of Sayidaty/Al Jamila Media, a longstanding independent regional publisher.

– People, InStyle, CNN, and Grazia are all established international media outlets with rigorous editorial oversight.

Given these credentials, it seems inaccurate to dismiss their coverage as “promotional.” or question their reliability. Each article includes original editorial content, context, and commentary beyond a basic press release.

I believe the above meets the general notability guideline (GNG), especially considering multiple independent features across major international and regional media titles.

Gheir (link works: https://www.gheir.com/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA/121123/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9-LEVUMA-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D9%87%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A1-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%8A )

link of CNN that works with coverage in greece: https://www.cnn.gr/style/psyxagogia/story/494450/lamperi-emfanisi-sti-skini-tis-teletis-aponomis-ton-mtv-video-music-awards-2025

(CNN also has written a recap in arabic during that event). Jwlryedit (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Vogue Arabia article is mostly just the founder speaking about his own company. It does not pass as a reliable source. Some of the other sources (e.g. this) have a similar problem. And the rest contain no significant coverage. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page created and written openly by company employee. WP:COI ←Metallurgist (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for the note. The focus here should ideally be on whether the article’s sources meet Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards rather than on who initiated the draft.

The draft was transparently created with a COI disclosure, following the guidelines under WP:COI and WP:EDITREQUEST. What matters for notability is the independent coverage by multiple reliable outlets such as Vogue Arabia (Condé Nast), Hia Magazine (SRMG), People, CNN, and InStyle, all of which provide verifiable editorial content.

I’d suggest assessing the page under WP:GNG based on the published coverage rather than authorship origin. Jwlryedit (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone reviewing. I’d like to kindly request that the assessment focus on source reliability and notability (WP:GNG) rather than authorship origin.

The article was created transparently with a COI disclosure per WP:COI guidelines, and edits have since followed standard edit-request procedures. It has also been amended multiple times to ensure a fully neutral, factual tone with all promotional language removed in line with WP:NPOV.

The publications cited — including Vogue Arabia (Condé Nast), Hia Magazine (SRMG), People, CNN, InStyle, Grazia, and Katerina Perez — are all independent, professionally edited, and reliable secondary sources within their domains.

Each provides verifiable, non-trivial coverage of the brand and its founder, satisfying WP:RS and contributing to WP:GNG. Whether the subject is notable should therefore be judged on the independent editorial content already published by these outlets, not on who first drafted the page.

I’d appreciate a neutral review of the sourcing and neutrality under those criteria. Thank you. Jwlryedit (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion with repeated long comments. You've made your opposition to deletion clear and that's fine, but you do not need to keep repeating it. CoconutOctopus talk 08:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would encourage the brand manager to note the requirements to meet the other three criteria, WP:ORGIND (which requires intellectual independence), WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SECONDARY, not just RS, to make use of the AFC process like they should have according to the COI guidelines they allegedly followed, and most of all, to stop wasting our time with LLM generated content and comments. That is all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prozis

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

Entirely promotional and failing WP:NORG at present. Amigao (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, Companies, Fashion, Sports, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. Looking at Spanish and Portuguese source, I see enough reference that establish notability. Mag2k (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
curious — which Spanish or Portuguese source are you referring to as meeting WP:NORG? EmilyR34 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Wayward Realms. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnceLost Games

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH outside of The Wayward Realms or Julian LeFay. The Wayward Realms is a viable WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's ATD suggestion misapplies policy. Yes, The Wayward Realms and Julian LeFay mention OnceLost Games, but that's expected since they're naturally related topics. The question isn't whether other articles mention the company, it's whether the company itself has sufficient independent coverage to warrant its own article per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.
OnceLost Games clearly does:
- The company's founding story itself received significant coverage as a notable industry event (multiple Bethesda veterans reuniting after decades)
- Coverage specifically discusses the company's internal challenges, business decisions, and organizational changes (Phoenix departure, publisher negotiations, personnel conflicts)
- The studio has multiple notable founders (Peterson, LeFay, Lakshman, Goodall, Heberling), not just one person whose biography could contain everything
- Significant coverage of the company's business strategy, crowdfunding success, and development approach exists independent of game feature discussion
- LeFay's death generated substantial coverage specifically about his role at OnceLost Games and the company's future
Merging to The Wayward Realms would create an awkward situation where we're cramming company history, founding details, business decisions, and personnel matters into a game article. That's backwards. Games are products of companies, not the other way around. The current structure (separate articles) properly reflects how sources treat these topics.

The fact that information appears in multiple articles doesn't violate any policy. WP:ATD is an alternative when content doesn't meet notability requirements, not a mandatory action when related articles exist. OnceLost Games meets WP:CORPDEPTH with significant, independent coverage beyond routine announcements. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wayward Realms. Article drastically overstates the amount of independent coverage the studio has received save for its founding, most of which are derived from the game or the studio's members. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia policy requires that coverage be "purely independent" of related topics to be considered notable; WP:GNG explicitly states that significant coverage "does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and OnceLost Games has received substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources discussing the company's operations, founding, business decisions, and organizational challenges. MightyLebowski (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as shown below, almost all coverage that The Wayward Realms has received is derived from the studio's members, so by your logic, we should go ahead and delete The Wayward Realms too. I'm trying to understand why anyone would want to confuse people and merge two distinct articles using (incorrect) Wikipedia policy logic that (when applied consistently) would lead to both being deleted. If you read The Wayward Realms article, the Development section is a mess, and is largely unrelated to the actual development (instead discussing internal game studio conflicts, members of the studio, business strategy, etc.). MightyLebowski (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to this, I have made a source assessment table of the sources to demonstrate my reasoning in making the nomination.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkane/2019/09/27/daggerfall-designer-ted-peterson-on-his-new-rpg-studio-oncelost-games/		~ "Articles written by Forbes staff are reliable. Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable."		~ Partial
https://kotaku.com/julian-lefay-the-elder-scrolls-daggerfall-bethesda-1851786769			Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCyFyvicis	Posted by OnceLost games	User generated		✘ No
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/the-father-of-elder-scrolls-julian-lefay-has-died-his-legacy-will-live-on-in-every-realm-every-quest-and-every-moment-of-wonder/			Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments	✘ No
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/the-elder-scrolls/father-of-the-elder-scrolls-julian-lefay-has-passed-away-and-his-team-say-his-legacy-will-live-on-in-every-realm-every-quest-and-every-moment-of-wonder-in-the-upcoming-fantasy-rpg-the-wayward-realms/			Mostly about Julian LeFay's creation of The Wayward Realms and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games	✘ No
https://gamerant.com/wayward-realms-elder-scrolls-fantasy-rpg-stealth-snuff-flame-good-why/		GameRant is a Valnet property	Mostly about Wayward Realms	✘ No
https://dgoodall.substack.com/p/wayward-realms-kickstarter	Announcement post by devs	User generated	About Wayward Realms	✘ No
https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-wayward-realms/funding-kickstarter			About Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-designers-of-the-original-elder-scrolls-are-making-a-new-rpg/			About Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/classic-elder-scrolls-developers-launch-new-studio-oncelost-games/			Minor announcement, run of the mill	✘ No
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/former-bethesda-developer-julian-lefay-known-as-the-father-of-the-elder-scrolls-has-died			Mostly about Julian LeFay's history as a game developer and death, trivial mention of OnceLost games as part of his accomplishments	✘ No
https://www.pcgamer.com/former-elder-scrolls-devs-announce-grand-rpg-the-wayward-realms/			Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.gamesradar.com/former-elder-scrolls-devs-reveal-the-wayward-realms-a-new-fantasy-rpg-on-a-scale-never-attempted/			Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.nme.com/news/former-elder-scrolls-developers-announce-the-wayward-realms-3009084			Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-wayward-realms/funding-kickstarter			Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-wayward-realms/kickstarter-elder-scrolls			Mostly about Wayward Realms, trivial mention of OnceLost Games	✘ No
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/the-elder-scrolls/father-of-elder-scrolls-steps-back-from-game-development-because-of-cancer-we-are-preparing-to-say-goodbye-to-a-true-legend-of-the-industry/			Mostly about Julian LeFay, trivial mention of OnceLost games	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/PC.Games.N050.1996.11-fl0n/page/n123/mode/2up	Primary source interview		Long before OnceLost Games was formed	✘ No
https://www.imperial-library.info/content/julian-lefay-in-conversation-with-pc-games-magazine	Primary source interview		Long before OnceLost Games was formed	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I think it speaks for itself, tell me if you take issue with any part of this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to source assessment table: I appreciate the detailed breakdown, but it misapplies WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH in several critical ways:

On the Forbes source reliability objection: You marked it reliable and significant but questioned it because it's Forbes Contributor content. Per WP:RSPS, Forbes Contributors articles can be used when the author has subject matter expertise. Alex Kane covers gaming professionally and this is a substantive interview specifically about OnceLost Games' founding. Even if we set this aside entirely, there's still sufficient coverage.

On the "trivial mention" characterizations: This is where the assessment fundamentally misunderstands WP:CORPDEPTH. Multiple sources you marked as "trivial" actually contain significant discussion of OnceLost Games:

Escapist Magazine (marked "minor announcement"): The article is literally titled "Classic Elder Scrolls Developers Launch New Studio, OnceLost Games." Coverage of a company's founding by notable industry veterans is significant per WP:NCORP (few companies get an announcement article written about them upon their formation unless they're notable).
Kotaku, PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun (LeFay death coverage, all marked "trivial"): These articles discuss OnceLost Games as LeFay's current company, quote company statements, discuss the company's future plans, and analyze what his death means for the studio. This isn't passing mention but substantive discussion of the company's circumstances and operations.
PCGamesN funding article (2022): Discusses OnceLost Games' investor search, management structure, volunteer workforce, development philosophy, and business strategy. You marked this "trivial mention" but it contains multiple paragraphs specifically about the company's operations and funding challenges.

The dispute is whether coverage meets WP:GNG's standard for "significant coverage" versus trivial mentions. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources discussing The Wayward Realms while extensively covering OnceLost Games' founding by industry veterans, internal conflicts, business strategy, and creative decisions provide significant coverage of the company itself, not mere mentions.

Further explanation: WP:CORPDEPTH requires "significant coverage" not "articles primarily about the subject." Coverage of OnceLost Games' founding, business decisions ($8M publisher rejection), organizational structure (40+ volunteers), internal conflicts (Phoenix departure), funding strategy (Kickstarter pivot after rejecting crowdfunding initially), and operational challenges is significant coverage even when appearing in articles that also discuss related topics like The Wayward Realms or Julian LeFay.

Your standard would require game studios to have dedicated profile pieces to qualify for articles. That's not Wikipedia policy. WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are satisfied by "significant coverage" across multiple reliable sources, which clearly exists here. The aggregate coverage provides detailed information about the company's formation, operations, personnel, business strategy, and organizational challenges.

Finally, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on whether suitable sources exist, not on the current state of citations in the article. The sources clearly exist (multiple reliable gaming publications have covered OnceLost Games' founding, business operations, and organizational developments). Even if the article (being brand new) could be improved with additional citations, that's not grounds for deletion/merging. The topic meets notability requirements because independent, reliable sources about the company are available in the real world.

OnceLost Games has significant, policy-compliant coverage (even if it's alongside other related coverage), and therefore its own article is clearly warranted. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has seen actual profile articles on companies numerous times, this is drastically overestimating the non-triviality of these sources. I am fully aware of the policy that significant coverage does not need to be the main topic, and even by those standards, it is trivial. But, given how vehement your argument is, it is unlikely we will ever see eye to eye, so I will wait for others to chime in about my source analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely puzzled why the coverage of OnceLost Games' founding, business decisions, organizational structure, and operational challenges in these sources should be characterized as trivial when the coverage of The Wayward Realms in those same articles is presumably sufficient to establish its notability. Many articles on the game are primarily about the founders (not the game itself), so should we merge The Wayward Realms into Julian LeFay's or Ted Peterson's article? After all, the only reason The Wayward Realms is notable is due to the founders being former senior Bethesda employees. I don't imagine you would propose that, so I'm just saying your logic doesn't make much sense. Both OnceLost Games and The Wayward Realms have received sufficient, non-trival media coverage to make them notable. MightyLebowski (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not particularly convinced The Wayward Realms is notable either, and I believe that coverage of both the game and the studio are trivial in all of those examples, but it did get a decent amount more coverage even if it is largely hype or speculative. It's enough that I'd be fine with "letting sleeping dogs lie" until the game is actually released and very likely becomes notable, unless the game lapses into being vaporware or is cancelled. On the other hand, the studio itself has almost nothing of substance, and did not even release a single game thus far. Merging it into the game would be uncontroversial in my eyes.

If we were going by the letter of policy then IMO both Wayward Realms and the studio should be merged into Julian LeFay's page, as he appears clearly notable for his role in creating Elder Scrolls, as well as his death. I am less convinced Ted Peterson passes WP:NWRITER. A lot of the sourcing there is weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion logic seems trigger-happy.

I cited WP:NEXIST earlier for a reason: an article shouldn't be deleted or merged just because of citation issues. The question of notability is based on whether it has non-trivial mentions in WP:RS, and I think it's well-established that all of the articles being discussed (including this one) have significant mentions in reliable sources (main subject or not).

I understand you want thorough sourcing, which is valuable, but we shouldn't start deleting or merging articles just because they have sourcing problems. I brought up the article comparisons to show that The Wayward Realms (and, from your perspective, Ted Peterson) would be deleted too under this logic, which goes too far. That's why deleting or merging this article also goes too far and applies policy more strictly than intended. MightyLebowski (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the problem comes when the topic of any given article only has one usable source. this can't even fly as a stub. people often set three usable sources as the baseline for an article for this exact reason

also, no one voted to delete or merge. usopp and i voted to redirect, which means that, ideally, no content will be carried over, and bottom row of a qwerty keyboard suggested the same consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has enough mentions to warrant notability, but you say it can't even be a stub? Lol. Using wikilawyering to justify a redirect on separate notable topics is wild. MightyLebowski (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

greninja suffered similar issues. most sources on it boiled down to discussing other topics and then adding "also greninja is cool i guess". that's not sigcov for greninja, but for the other stuff being discussed. this is more or less the same case, where the only reason the devs are even mentioned is because they developed the game... which is kinda weird for a case like this when bloodstained's devs (more specifically iga) didn't have similar reception, but i digress consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the wayward realms. regardless of what lebowski wants to say (which has really gone into bludgeoning, please stop), this article really doesn't have much to stand on. think of it as a team cherry case, where the dev team's only "notability" comes from passing mentions when it comes to their products. except unlike team cherry, this one might just be too soon. no opinion on what to do with the wayward realms for now consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you're just wikihounding and following me from our disagreements in the Nine Theses. Nobody is bludgeoning except you... it's a conversation about a singular point relating to notability. MightyLebowski (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you wanna call it that, i was actually wikihounding zxcvbnm lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough lol. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions on the source assessment are welcomed, so far consensus leans towards redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Wayward Realms. I think the Forbes article is a reliable source, Alex Kane counts as a subject-matter expert, he has written for multiple other reliable sources: [55]. But I don't see another piece of significant coverage so the article falls just below notability. Some of the content could also be merged between Julian LeFay and Ted Peterson (writer) if deemed appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a video game article. The reliable sources are listed here.

There's way more than just one reliable source in this article. From the above list:

PC Gamer
GamesRadar+
PCGamesN
Rock Paper Shotgun
NME

Would you agree they're notable now? MightyLebowski (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are reliable sources but I was talking about significant coverage, see WP:SIGCOV. Forbes article is the only one that qualifies as SIGCOV of the company itself and not their game. --Mika1h (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would take a look at some of the sources. While it's true OnceLost Games isn't the main topic of every source, that's not required to be considered significant coverage, and there is certainly more than a trivial mention of them. MightyLebowski (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wayward Realms Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to The Wayward Realms? Or just redirect there without merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 11 November 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.

True Ventures

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

Highly promotional and seems to fail WP:NORG. Also, could be a potential WP:COI situation here. Amigao (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. jolielover♥talk 06:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what would make this less promotional? I tried to use high-quality sources for every citation and followed similar pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_Capital and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Catalyst Newthinking (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Crunchbase and Crunchbase News should not be viewed as the same thing. The former is a database that anyone can change (which is why Wikipedia deems it a non-deprecated source), while the latter is a respectable publication. Unfortunately, Crunchbase News was started after Crunchbase and uses the same domain. Newthinking (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the page tone is promotional in places, but the topic itself shows sustained independent coverage in reliable business media like The Wall Street Journal ^[1] and TechCrunch ^[2]... The firm’s long activity (since 2005), repeated mention in coverage of major startup exits.. and discussion in independent venture capital reporting meet the depth required under WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. While the Venture Firm of the Year note from NVCA is just trade recognition and not a proof of notability by itself, the consistent multi-source coverage indicates encyclopedic significance. LexyNight (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Included Health

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

Highly promotional with heavy use of company press releases and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by independent WP:RS. Also, potential WP:COI at play involving WP:SPAs. Amigao (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, United States of America, and California. jolielover♥talk 04:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notability exists but promotional language needed to be toned down. Removed information that strayed from the subject and toned down language to make this entry more neutral. Agree this should be kept up given the independent sourcing that exists but open to edits. Pistachiosmiles53 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning that we are now seeing WP:SPAs appear here that may have a potential WP:COI. - Amigao (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom + the sockpuppetry has confirmed my suspicions that this is largely promotional junk ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ORGCRIT 173.206.50.207 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see a source review from some more experienced editors. This is heavily referenced but what is the quality of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just spam. There's no reason to try to defend it. MediaKyle (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft or userfy. This is one of those financial envelopes that sit round real companies (the kind that deliver actual services). The financial envelope's apparent notability comes from finance-oriented publications. I suspect that these publications exist to promote risky investment in such financial envelopes. I would be a lot more impressed if someone built a little family of articles on the various companies that were merged into this financial envelope, and which used more obviously valid sources in addition to the type used here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Move to draft – The subject appears to meet potential WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG thresholds, as it is covered by independent outlets like CNBC, Fortune, Forbes, and STAT News. However, the article currently suffers from promotional tone and overreliance on press releases, raising WP:ORGCRIT and WP:COI concerns. Moving to draft space would allow further cleanup and sourcing improvements before mainspace restoration. SanneMonte (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Discovery, Inc. and WarnerMedia

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

Doesn't have enought info to have its own page. LarryTheBird2011 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Wikishovel (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, and as this is about a merger, not an organization, ORG doesn't apply. I see no policy-based reason to compel a merger (although the nominee doesn't specify where), although a talk page discussion could surely decide to merge this content elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:LarryTheBird2011, you never tagged this article with an AFD tag indicating that it was nominated for a deletion discussion and I'm wondering if you notified the article creator either or posted this on the AFD daily log. It's a fairly lengthy article so I don't think your deletion rationale makes any sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now: While the Discovery/WarnerMedia page does need several rounds of expansion, it still has enough content to be kept around. The merger may not be as significant as AT&T/Time Warner or Disney/Fox, but the mere fact that it happened should be more than enough notability. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While this article could benefit from some improvements and expansion of critical commentary and analysis of the merger's impact on the industry and its business practices that have come under scrutiny, this article on the merger itself does not seem to warrant outright deletion and is fairly well documented at the moment, even if it is lacking some additional material to become a better encyclopedia entry. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon further inspection, this article is a blatant WP:CONTENTFORK of the Warner Bros. Discovery article with unattributed WP:CUTPASTE material from that article, and was created unilaterally as an undiscussed split, bypassing any proposal or AfC. The present WBD article is still of a sufficiently small size to the point where such a split is not warranted nor necessary, and I am surprised if notability holds more weight than getting rid of a blatant fork. Other keep !votes do not sufficiently address these concerns and are without encyclopedic merit. Having a separate article fork like this for a transaction that happened 3 years ago and is still covered with ease at the parent article is a disservice to our readers. I would like for the article author, @GachaDog to explain why they felt this article was needed while bypassing any split proposal or discussion in making this fork. This article may become useful later in the future, but even with the fate of the resulting entity in question, there is not enough material in the parent article to warrant separation per WP:SIZESPLIT. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasonings of Jclemens, Liz (although not taking sides or any side), TheFloridaTyper and by extention the original stance of Trailblazer101 (although has now shifted sides). In fact, I'll attempt to rename this title correctly after this AFD because although the sightings are that Discovery, Inc. bought and merged with WarnerMedia, the title looks to me more like the "goat" gobbled up the "Goliath"! Intrisit (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This is already covered at Warner Bros. Discovery and is largely repetative. This does not need to be covered on a second page.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Foundation

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The articles are all passing mentions[56][57] or routine trivial coverage based on company announcements[58][59] that don't contribute to notability. One source is just a column written by the org's founder[60], another is an interview with him[61]. Some of the sources are potentially unreliable and just quote the founder without sigcov[62][63][64]. This should be deleted or at best redirected to Ri-Karlo Handy. Niafied (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has cited a policy in error. WP:CORPDEPTH is mainly used for for-profit businesses only. This is a non-profit organization, so it does not have to pass CORPDEPTH and the rigor at WP:ORGCRIT also is not applicable to this topic as it is a non-profit. The correct policy is WP:NONPROFIT. I am seeing non-trivial coverage in national publications (ie Variety and AFRO American Newspapers) cited in the article. This fulfills the NONPROFIT criteria "Nationally well-known local organizations". The Los Angeles Times also has a global readership so it too factors in. There is also WP:SIGCOV on the Handy Foundation in Tseng, Ada; Healey, Jon (2025). Breaking Into New Hollywood: A Career Guide to a Changing Industry. Simon & Schuster. pp. 275–278. ISBN 9781668049990. If editors disagree, a merge/redirect to Ri-Karlo Handy would be a feasible WP:ATD as the nominator has already acknowledged. A delete would not be an acceptable choice.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake for forgetting WP:NONPROFIT. I still don't think there's enough significant coverage. The Variety article is a routine announcement about Netflix doing a program, the Afro American doesn't seem independent and is mostly the founder's own statements about why he started the organization. The most reliable sources are either about the founder's Facebook controversy or are passing mentions of the foundation. Almost all of the relevant information is on the founder's page already. Niafied (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources that I think makes this page meet WP:GNG this is from Variety Magazine [[65]] and this is the Handy Foundation mentioned by The NAACP: [[66]] and the golden globes [[67]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Variety article was already on the page, and I reckon that the other sources are no better since they're not independent enough. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People keep finding primary sources. Maybe no significant coverage exists yet? It's nice to be a charity instead of a business but that doesn't mean it's notable, at the end of the day. MelbourneIdentity (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huron Capital Partners

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

Existing sources are not independent. Googling indicates this fails NORG and GNG because the sources are not independent. Failed PROD. Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - incomprehensible. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 24 October 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 03:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references from Detroit-area newspapers such as Crain's Detroit Business are independent. https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130113/NEWS/301139970/huron-capital-raises-its-largest-fund includes a writer's byline. The only reference from Huron Capital's own website is used to add detail rather than establish notabiliy. The article uses technical terminology specific to the private equity sector, but that's an argument for editing. That is, a private equity fund is other people's money that is invested (along with the firm's own money) is a variety of companies, and the firm makes not only profits on its share of the fund, but also on a carried interest in the gains of the other investors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what would lead you to believe Crain's Detroit Business is independent. That is a pay-to-publish PR source. Czarking0 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crain Communications' local business publications such as Crain's Detroit Business are independent, reliable sources. They've been used at many other AfDs. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeen and Western Railroad

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

I cannot find any evidence that this is an actual operating railroad, or ever was. It does not appear on the Illinois DOT railroad map. There is an utter lack of any secondary sourcing of this company. The most I can figure out is that it's a 0.2 mile long spur serving an Ameren facility. Reporting marks "CAEG" clearly imply Ameren Energy Generating Company. A Branford Steam Railroad this is not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OpenCorporates confirms that the company exists this link, and Amaren's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirm that Coffeen and Western Railroad was a subsidiary of Ameren Energy Generating Company on December 31, 2008. It is unclear whether the railroad's ownership changed when Ameren sold Coffeen Power Station to Dynegy in 2013. Dynergy was later acquired by Vistra Corp., which closed the power station in 2019. On the basis of "once notable, always notable", I think the article should be kept, even though I can't tell who owns the company and whether it still operates trains. I don't know whether its fleet of hoppers were sold or are leased to some other company, but at least I was able to find some relevant information. Addresses shown on OpenCorporates are often those of an agent rather than a company's real headquarters. https://renewillinoispower.com/community-scorecard-energy/coffeen/ says that Coffeen Power Station has been replaced by a solar energy facility, but I can't tell whether it uses the rail facilities. Dun & Bradstreet has a listing for Coffeen and Western Railroad under D-U-N-S number 623794992. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that an entity by this name exists or did exist, I'm disputing that it was ever an operating railroad and that it has been the subject of any secondary coverage. Your sources which are exclusively primary just prove my point further. You just want the article kept because you want everything kept, policies and guidelines be damned. WP:N doesn't cease to govern just because you don't like it. You really want to argue with the guy who writes all day about long since gone railroads that "once notable, always notable" is a policy? You know I wrote a FA about a railroad that shut down in 1947, right? This is a sad response to the deletion nomination and makes it hard to even take your vote seriously.
Let's go source by source and refute everything in your response:
- OpenCorporates is a glorified database, and there's nothing at the link you provided that gives even the slightest amount of detail on the subject. Obviously not a source meeting GNG.
- Dun and Bradstreet is the same sort of thing as OpenCorporates. There's no significant coverage, or even anything close. Clear GNG fail.
- You're speculating about the fleet of hoppers and if the facility was replaced with solar. I don't care, and neither does GNG. We need coverage of the supposed railroad and you have failed to find anything usable. Don't you think I checked before making this nomination? Railroads are my bread and butter. I looked in all the usual places. Any operating or formerly operating common carrier railroad will meet GNG 99% of the time, easily. I can't find anything even close to meeting GNG and I looked extensively. This is not notable, it never has been notable, you made no effort to even try and prove it is notable, and it's exhausting to spend so much more time refuting your policy-ignorant arguments than it takes for you to generate them.
Eastmain, do you even know what GNG is? How about WP:N? Your response is so extremely out of line with community consensus it makes me wonder if you should be allowed to participate in AfD at all. "I think the article should be kept, even though there's basically zero verifiable information about any aspect of it, because I don't want anything to ever be deleted" would at least be honest and let me respect you a bit more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now has multiple citations to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think source #2 establishes notability, your understanding of notability is entirely at odds with the Wikipedia community to the point I question your competence to participate in AfD. At least look at the two sources before voting. Both are WP:PRIMARY, but source 2 is egregious because in its entirety it is just a list of subsidiaries which confirms an entity by the name Coffeen and Western Railroad exists. It says zero about the subject. Not a single sentence. I'm losing my mind here. Has AfD always had everyone just ignore policies, guidelines, and reality, or is this a recent development? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything worth keeping in this article, merge it to either Amren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Coffeen Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There's not enough reference material on the Web or on Newspapers.com to indicate notability of this railroad, other than discussion in some railfan forums. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Ameren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I meant Ameren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I should have been paying attention. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Company exists but too many WP:PRIMARY sources, searching it up yields no secondary/independent sources, making a it WP:SIRS/WP:ORGIND fail and notability fail. Its a company only on paper. x2step (lets talk 💌) 06:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffeen Power Station, perhaps with one sentence added in the target article. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffeen Power Station. Lacks secondary coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ameren where a cited mention of Coffeen and Western Railroad (and Coffeen Power Station) would be an improvement and a preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Polling

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing any coverage even close to meeting WP:NORG. Only one source dedicated to the subject which is a "local students make website" article and doesn't convey any notability. The rest, aside from passing mentions and WP:ABOUTSELF or social media sources, are either an interview (see WP:INTERVIEW), just one paragraph worth of content about them not being reliable in an article or dedicated to debunking one individual poll result the company released. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think current sourcing is enough to meet notability guidelines though others may disagree. I think it's important for a neutral party like wikipedia to shine a light on intentionally biased polling operations. There should be some editing to remove more promotional/subjective material (e.g. "accurate prediction" of 2024 election as a coin flip chance says very little about overall accuracy --- what were the margins? state by state?). Page protection may also be advised if the article sticks around given it's notoriety in US politics. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources are about coverage of their polls, rather than about the company and some primary. No additional reliable sources found in my search.Darkm777 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find this article in particular difficult to assess, because while it has some good sources, many other sources are unreliable. If kept, it needs significant copy editing. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s important that Wikipedia maintain a public record of a well-known, biased political operation that regularly garners millions of impressions on social media. Article has several good sources, though the article likely needs additional editing. Tilden1876 (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but requires further polish and a promo tag until the content is fixed. The CBS News and New York Times coverage establish borderline notability in my opinion. Social media references need to be removed. Silvymaro (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I agree with Silvymaro social media sources need to be removed and the page needs some work. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could any of the keep voters explain to me why the CBS News and New York Times sources define notability? Is there something I'm not seeing in them? The CBS piece is a local news piece, finished with "Know an outstanding high school senior that deserves recognition? Let us know by completing the form below and we may select the student to be featured in our "Focusing on the Future" series." This is simply "local kids done good" coverage which I do not see as defining notability at all. The New York Times sources are either one paragraph in an article about low-quality polls, or a short few paragraphs in an article about a poll they ran, which is borderline at best, but even taking it at its best it's one source and that alone isn't enough to establish notability imo. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I would agree that the CBS coverage, being marked as local coverage from a local affiliate, would not meet WP:AUD as I would interpret it. I'm also disinclined to consider either it or the NYT articles to meet ORGDEPTH, and yet they are from what I can tell the most "direct and in-detail" coverage there is out there. Importance is not, as far as I am aware, currently considered an accepted notability guideline for organisations and companies, and I don't see how cleanup has anything to do with anything at all. I do not see a way for this to meet NCORP. The article should again be deleted. Alternatively, this can also be redirected to an anchor created for this purpose in § Public opinion of Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, para. 3. I would not object to such a redirection as an ATD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. While borderline, Patriot Polling meets the general notability guideline (GNG) through multiple instances of coverage in reliable national outlets.

The New York Times explicitly referenced the organization by name in its analysis of low-quality polling and its influence on election discourse, coverage that constitutes non-trivial, critical examination of the subject’s role in shaping public perception during the 2024 election cycle. This satisfies the depth expected under WP:ORGDEPTH since it engages directly with the reliability and methodology of the organization’s polling, rather than treating it as a passing mention.

Moreover, under WP:NOTABILITY, an entity may merit inclusion if it has “received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources,” even if limited in number, provided those sources discuss the organization in substantive, analytical, or critical terms. This threshold is comparable to several other articles on polling firms that have nonetheless been retained due to their public visibility and impact on political discourse.

From a public-interest perspective, the article’s preservation also serves a legitimate encyclopedic function. The organization has played a notable role in shaping online and media narratives about U.S. elections, and its results have been cited, debated, and debunked in national forums. Wikipedia, as a neutral record, has an obligation to document such entities to contextualize misinformation and political data.

Substantial cleanup is indeed necessary (removal of social media material and citation tightening), but these are editorial issues, not grounds for deletion. Deletion would erase a verifiable record of a politically visible organization that meets notability criteria and has demonstrable coverage in multiple independent outlets. 37.135.62.170 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, While it requires significant improvement, CBS News and New York Times does qualify for keeping it here. Mag2k (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source with notable coverage I can find is the NYT article, which dedicated seven paragraphs to the firm and included a photo of its founders. The coverage of Greenland is focused on the poll, not the company, so fails sigcov. The coverage from CBS fails a criterion for content independence. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 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. Notwithstanding that the article's lede does not, in my opinion, appropriately summarise the rest of the article, there are insufficient references that meet NCORP. For example, this NYT article appears to be pretty detailed, until you realise that the same information appears in this interview in the Delaware Valley Journal - so clearly the NYT article is not "original content" and fails ORGIND and the Delaware Valley Journal relies entirely on an interview, so that also fails ORGIND. So its a no from me, nothing here passes NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as more of a news story than a NCORP. Their polling has been analyzed and criticized in a number of reliable sources. There are sources about the founder, some that address the bias of the polls. The article does need work: copy editing and removing some of the unreliable sources. I don't know what to do about the tweets as sources - if you are making a statement that an important person tweeted about their polls you basically do need to cite the tweet. Lamona (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're... not really here to cover news stories. We could potentially try to change that, but I expect it would require reworking a lot of our other editorial policies to do things properly. There are room in some articles for what is in news stories, and redirecting to an anchor on Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland would probably be the best way to do that, but I really don't think we can effectively do so now with how we're set up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"News" was not the right word, but I couldn't come up with one. What's interesting about this "company" (if it is one) is that they have been accused of turning out badly biased polls. The founder of the polling group has been vocal about his political preferences, which seems to align with the skewed polls. That's what's notable, and it is reported in a good many sources. So the company qua company is of little interest (market value, etc.). But there is a fair amount of reporting on their polls. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the purpose of AfD to decide whether a company is "interesting". It is very simple. We look at the sources to see if we have multiple sources that meet our guidelines for establishing notability. If you want to make a solid arguement (and not just voice an opinion) to "Keep", it is best to point to particular paragraphs in particular sources which you say meet GNG/NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My god, if I thought my posts would be so misconstrued ... I might as well have written them in Klingon. (Actually, that might have worked better.) I said "notable" and I referred to "sources". It's no more of an "opinion" than any other posts here. And I notice you didn't jump on others who !voted Keep. Am I special? CBS news (full article), The Hill (full article), Newsweek, at least half about the Greenland poll, GB News, based on the Greenland poll, Nyheder, Denmark, full article about the mess the Greenland poll created, Berlingske.dk, another long article on the Greenland mess that Patriot Polling created. Then there's the company founder complaining about getting death threats based on a WSJ op ed that he wrote. That's him, not the polling group, and I do think that we may eventually get enough about him for an article. Lamona (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting these sources, but I still believe that they're not enough to pass WP:GNG. (I'll keep this my only comment on the thread as I've already weighed in above, but as some new sources have been presented I want to respond to them.) The The Hill/Newsweek sources are coverage of an individual poll and don't define notability for the company itself. The NY Post (aside from not being about the company) and GB News are unreliable sources per WP:RSP. The CBS News article is from a local affiliate and is just "local kids done good" type coverage. The Berlingske and Nyheder sources are slightly better as there's some sort of analysis in there, but again, they only talk about the impacts of one particular poll. If we're not analysing it through WP:NCORP as you say above, and instead as a mass polling shock event, this fails notability guidelines by a lot. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wording is fine. I read your comment as the company having been involved in notable events, which we could cover if they meet WP:NEVENT. I do not believe the events they have been involved with meet such a criteria to the extent that we can write a suitable standalone article, and not every newsworthy event would do so. The Hill, for example, is pretty clearly routine coverage to my eye. A redirect to a broader event (the Greenland mess, as aptly put) is the normal solution in those cases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio News Hub

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

WP:BEFORE reveals only primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. SpragueThomson^talk 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly large news provider and would pass WP:GNG. Sources are reported by a journal rather than by the company itself. This is Paul (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost every single source is from Radio Today, which counts as combined 1 source. I am also not sure if that is a primary source. The article on Prolific London might have worked but I am getting 404 error on it.Darkm777 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific London now has an archived url. This is Paul (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any solid secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the same reasons as stated by This is Paul. Rillington (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sourcing isn't there. The prolificlondon.co.uk is only one source, and we need multiple sources. I am essentially making an WP:IAR argument here. Given that hundreds of radio stations in the UK use their services its a significant media outlet. I fail to see the benefit to the public not covering this topic. That said... I don't think anyone can honestly claim a WP:GNG or WP:ORG pass. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. Appears to be a lot of coverage on Radio Today, plus there is coverage elsewhere such as this feature in the Press Gazette which provides secondary analysis on the growth of the subject, and updates the total number of stations served. ResonantDis_tortion 21:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One reason, above, being provided for "Keep" is that the company is a "fairly large news provider" where "sources are reported by a journal rather than by the company itself" - this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the criteria to establish notability. Also the argument that it gets "a lot of coverage" is not one of the criteria, and the Press Gazette relies entirely on information provided by the company and in an interview - that is not independent content. At least 4meter4 acknowledges the sourcing doesn't meet the criteria and is making an argument based on IAR instead. Since the topic organisation is a company. 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. None of the sourcing is independent content, it is regurgitated company contant, it fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12Go

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Going through the sources: source 1 is a press release, source 2 is an obvious promo piece (just look at the author's other pieces), source 3 is a directory entry, source 4 and source 5/9 are routine coverage, source 6 leads to an error page and would be routine coverage anyways, source 7 is a press release, source 8 is another PR piece, source 10 is a "contributor" piece, not staff-written, and source 11 is the company itself. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Technology, Transportation, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the sources, in my opinion, The Pioneer (India) and FPJ are not PR. Favorable description is not always advertising. Source 6 opens perfectly via the archive link. So, the company occupies a fairly prominent position in the region and receives just enough media coverage. OmicronLib (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common for Indian media sources to launder PR as legitimate news coverage, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The FPJ source states at the bottom Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team. It is not a staff-published article. In addition, the Pioneer source does not have a byline, suggesting that it is PR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article has existed for several years in other language sections of WP. There are many sources there. I checked some of them with machine translation and they look good.

[68][69][70] OmicronLib (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't matter whether the same article exists in other languages; the English Wikipedia tends to have stricter standards than other languages. I didn't see any clearly independent, non-routine sources in a spotcheck of those articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant thing to 'see' is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ, which says:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?

No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

Bylines are not required, and if you've looked through an ordinary daily newspaper (on paper) and noticed how few of the articles have bylines (especially short ones), you might not think they are good indicators of PR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Omnicron. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per at least these two sources: [71] [72]. These sites are used hundreds of times in Wikipedia. Brosticate (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technode source doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND since it almost entirely relies on what the company has to say about itself: it mainly talks about the company's ambitions and future plans, as well as quotes from the founder. ~~Seat61 is an unreliable self-published blog.~~

It does not matter how many times editors have added a source to Wikipedia, that does not mean that the source is reliable. There are thousands of citations to Google searches in Wikipedia articles, even though Google is clearly not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Correction: Seat61 is a well-respected blog, but it is still only a single source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wait a minute, Seat61 is not an independent source since it has an affiliate commission scheme with 12go. We're back to having zero sources that count towards WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above; you can add a tag to the article if you'd like, but it seems to be an important enough company that we could fix the article instead of deleting it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant SNG is WP:NCORP and so we need multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS with WP:CORPDEPTH. That is to say we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources that provide deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The existence of pages on other Wiki projects will certainly not do. We have a source analysis above of all the other sources, and this analysis is correct. We need to bear WP:NEWSORGINDIA in mind. We do not have a single source that meets WP:SIRS, and votes that merely state that sources exist without showing why these meet WP:SIRS should be WP:DISCARDed. For those who no doubt wish to disagree with me, what sources do you think meet WP:SIRS? If there are none, this page should be deleted (again). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TTG Asia focused on the company i.e., non-trivial reporting - so not what we typically consider under WP:ROUTINE.
I also found additional En-language coverage:
Skift https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/
e27 https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/
and non-En editorial sources to add:
PassportNews https://passportnews.co.il/article/184890
TourMaG https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html
Per WP:BIAS, WP:CSB and WP:NONENG, Indian sources shouldn’t be discounted merely for their origin - especially for a company operating in India, with remaining standards WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
As for TechNode: I see no inherent problem with that outlet—this is precisely what journalism does, verify and synthesize primary materials and when it does so the result is a WP:SECONDARY source. LvivLark (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't filled in everything here, but it is clear these 4 new sources do not add anything that meets WP:SIRS. Have a read of WP:ORGDEPTH in particular to see what is required for companies. PR about the startup and company announcements will not do.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://skift.com/2022/10/05/airasia-superapp-boosts-ground-transport-options-with-bookaway-deal/	Unclear if this is off a press release, which would not be independent, but bylined Matthew Parsons. Giving it a pass on that basis	Haven't checked, but it looks reliable.	All we have is 12Go offers instant seat confirmation with the 4,000 operators, covering 50,000 routes across 26 countries in Asia. which is well short of ORGDEPTH	It's a news report amd WP:PRIMARYNEWS pertains, but is information about the subject secondary in a discursive primary source? It's moot since this does not meet ORGDEPTH
https://e27.co/this-startup-lets-you-buy-bus-tickets-from-your-laptop-20140620/	This is a PR piece for the startup.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			All it says is Ron Hoffman'The VP of Product of the tourism giant Agoda, is moving to the Travelier Group and will serve as the Group's VP of Product (CPO) and CEO of its subsidiary 12GO. Not ORGDEPTH, that is a passing mention.
https://www.tourmag.com/CheckMyBus-integre-des-itineraires-d-autocar-en-Thailande-et-en-Asie-du-Sud-Est_a84375.html			all it has is It has, in fact, just signed a partnership with the Thai OTA 12Go Asia, which has been offering cheap travel to Southeast Asia for 3 years and has customer service in 9 languages. - that is well short of ORGDEPTH

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The four new sources don't support notability and neither do the sources in the article. Agree with Helpful Racoon's evaluation of the existing sources and the table. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the company seems important" aren't convincing arguments to keep. Countglob (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The TTG articles are a pretty clear example of WP:CORPROUTINE as standard announcements, launch and partnership, the second blatantly based off a press kit given the reuse of quotes in other sources churning the same press kit. ROUTINE, which, additionally has nothing to do with focused on the company. I could find no better in the 173 results from ProQuest for 2008–2025. Given that the keep !voters have declined to explain why they have made the assertions they have, I can only conclude either a lack of clue on the relevant guidelines or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm a little mystified why one of the keep !voters bought up operating in India specifically when the company is headquartered in Singapore and primarily operates in Thailand. Yes, it also does so in other APAC countries, but India doesn't seem to be a major focus for them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Most cited sources are press releases, affiliate blogs, or trade mentions that do not show WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:SIRS... Publications like The Pioneer, Free Press Journal, CalBiz Journal, and Markets Insider are either syndicated PR or contain promotional content written from company material. TTG Asia and TechNode provide only brief, routine reporting rather than independent analysis..... Non-English sources listed in other language Wikipedias also give no significant coverage when translated. LexyNight (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article’s sources are mostly press releases, routine announcements and content recycled from them. None of them are independent and the sources in the AfD are of similar quality. All of them fail the WP:SIRS check Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 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⁺⁺ 18:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions

[1] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/ai-startups-have-a-new-old-secret-weapon-forward-deployed-engineers-d18ee609

[2] ttps://techcrunch.com/2018/10/30/true-ventures-has-two-new-funds-to-invest-totaling-635-million-to-plug-into-a-wide-range-of-startups/

[1]

[2]