Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authenticom, Inc. (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticom, Inc.

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:AUD & WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Sources include a non-independent corp directory in Bloomberg, DealerRefresh and / or passing mentions that do not establish notability. Previous AfD closed as "Keep" because the nomination was withdrawn, but the article is still unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This company doesn't meet GN guidelines for a company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Authenticom, Inc. page is a better candidate for Update instead of Deletion: the company is quite prominent in the news right now, and has even been recognized individually by Fmr. President Obama, & WI Gov. Walker. I will begin edits.Laccrosseed 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is good 'nuff. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment L3X1 Could you provide a link or two for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Here ar some: Regarding lawsuit, 2, P. Obama praised it, lawsuit #2. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you L3X1, assuming the Dayton Daily News meets the criteria for establishing notability (which I believe it does with a circulation of 100,000 or so), the source in relation to the lawsuit is good. But in my opinion both of the Lacrosse Tribune articles fail WP:ORGIND. I also suspect that it is a local paper (low circulation) and therefore I would disregard it as a reliable source. We still need one more source (we need two different sources). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Sounds like a great company to work for. However, could find no significant references other than a local paper and two articles published by the Dayton Daily News in early May 2017, concerning the Federal Lawsuit ,brought by Authenticom, Inc. against Reynolds and CDK. Does this make the company notable? Sorry to say no. Thousands of Federal civil lawsuits are filed every year. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of coverage needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 4 July 2017 (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.