Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housekeep

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeep

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Can't see any indication that WP:CORP is met SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find relialbe sources with significant coverage. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I found one not bad - the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/nov/21/didnt-have-choice-think-carefully-about-cash ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. The reason given for deletion does not hold water. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every mention of a company on something that looks like a news source is good for WP:ORGCRIT. Of the sources mentioned in this AfD, only the guardian clearly meets the bar for source reliability, but the article isn't independent (it's an interview with the founder). As an imprint of the financial times, TNW might, but the TNW reference's situation re. notability establishment is even worse, since it's both dependent and a mention in a list. FalconK (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage. Seems to be typical startup news and paid write-up in the Guardian. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Dubious about startups.co.uk. Thenextweb seems ok, although as it has the same picture as the last one it takes it down a bit, but this isn't PR generated the same way. The Guardian is an interview with little original content not originating from that interview, so fails ORGCRITE. Techcrunch is good, and is more than a routine announcement of fundraising, but provides some independent analysis. None of it is horribly in-depth except for the interview, so I come up with the equivalent of 1.5 sources, which may seem an odd analysis, so therefore this isn't a !vote, just thinking out loud. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm normally one of the biggest business articles supporters here, but the coverage isn't that great. Funding of $1M is relatively small, and a lot of the article is name dropping and not actually about the company itself. I initially considered calling it WP:TOOSOON, but they were founded 8 years ago. The founder Avin Rabheru was awarded an MBE. Not adverse to merging this into an article about him, where the sourcing requirement for including company info wouldn't be so high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (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.