Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NPX Capital

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPX Capital

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Routine coverage, press-releases and PR. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Korea. Isabelle ^🔔 23:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This AFC acceptance was erroneous. It should have been declined as an advert and as failing WP:NCORP. Since it is now here at AfD it needs to be deleted. The references are churnalism and the organisation's own web site. The article smells like UPE. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable UPE. Sources 1 and 2 are press releases, source 3 is primary, 4 and 5 have no identifiable author but the websites offer paid pieces. 6 is reliable, but 7 is user-generated. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An advertisement, sourced to advertisements. Should have been speedied, not accepted, not redraftified; certainly should not have been moved back into mainspace. Delete unless fundamentally rewritten to be an encyclopedia article, regardless of whatever other glorified advertisements are found to source it. —Cryptic 10:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a new editor who is seeking to create articles on this and associated companies and individuals associated with the company. The article describes the company and its transactional history without indicating what it has accomplished to be of encyclopaedic note. The references provided predominantly fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, aside perhaps from the profile piece on a Seoulz start-up website. Searches also find a podcast about work-life balance featuring one of the firm's people, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cryptic. The page qualifies for speedy deletion as spam. The acceptance as an article for creation was wrong, the moving back to draft space was dubious, and the moving back to mainspace by an administrator was way out. (Wbm1058 gave as the reason for returning to mainspace the fact that it had been accepted as an article for creation, as though the opinion of one editor who decides to do that, no matter how reasonably or unreasonably, must be accepted.) JBW (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Just noting that at the time I moved it back to mainspace, the editor who "dubiously" moved back to draft had been blocked for 24 hrs for (Disruptive editing: abusive speedy tagging after warnings) – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Ok, and I now see that considerable concern has been expressed about that editor's draftification of articles. That certainly throws a different light on your action, which looks much more comprehensible than it did. Even so, I certainly wouldn't have done the same, as I don't think what we agree was a bad draftification justifies what I think was a bad article-ification. JBW (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googled search shows that this company has not coverage in any independent reliable sources.Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vote seems pretty unanimous and I can't see any reason to keep the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per the policies laid out by Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree this should be speedy deleted at the first place. Looks somebody is promoting his/her own company. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 26 February 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.