Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP:DS/COWP:DS/CO

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

Point of View (company)

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

Disputed PROD that gave no sources. Fails WP:NCORP, and yes I did search for "Point of View Inc" in magazines and still found very little. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circus (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The JP page isn't much better in this regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DocNetwork

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find significant coverage of this health IT company in reliable sources. An online search of this company produces press releases and this article covering the dancing baby meme which does not appear to be relevant. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Software, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find sources either. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looked through g-news, g-books, newspapers.com, and PressReader- I don't see anything that checks all the boxes for WP:SIRS. There are a few g-scholar hits related to people using their CampDoc software to study summer camp disaster preparedness etc., but founder is a co-author so they are non-independent. Zzz plant (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Discovery Streaming & Studios

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

The article is just a repackaged version of its parent article Warner Bros. Discovery. It offers no additional value as a standalone page currently. Propose to redirect to the parent article for now. - The9Man ^Talk 07:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warner Bros. Discovery#Proposed company separation (2025–present): this will be one of the companies Warner Bros. Discovery is splitting into (and has already been reorganized to reflect that), but the current article is little more than a content fork at this time. The post-split companies will undoubtedly be notable… but they'll probably have actual names by then too (though that's not guaranteed), so this might be a "too soon" situation as well. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t happen. I think it should be like a shut down and successor thing on the info box. 74.103.246.236 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPalm

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

This article is currently a poorly sourced brochure for this certification program. We are presented with GreenPalm's own website, a "sustainability report", and an article from "Food Navigator USA", which does not satisfy notability. I did a brief search myself, and turned up a couple of passing mentions but nothing substantial. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Environment, and Estonia. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APCOA Parking

AfDs for this article:

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

Another entry in the saga of UPE content is this German parking management company. The article seems to present only primary sources and routine coverage, and I am unsure if notability can be established to comply with WP:NCORP. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Germany. MediaKyle (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Express

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

Non-notable and very small English independent bus operator which serves as more of a footnote in the history of parent Probus Management. Single paragraph in the 'history' section refers to People's Express, the rest, besides a change of trading name, refers to Probus and its subsequent acquisition by Go-Ahead/Diamond. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Hullian111 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent sources. Most of what I can find refers to the airline, as such fails GNG and NCORP. As it is, it's halfway to a fork of Probus Managment. LightlySeared (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kallar Kahar Science College

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

This article's pretty much built entirely on primary sources. If it weren't an educational institution, it would've been an easy A7 speedy delete. But since A7 doesn't apply here, I'm bringing it to AfD instead. Junbeesh (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Junbeesh (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets notability requirements under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:General Notability Guideline. The college has been the subject of multiple independent, reliable news sources:

In 2013, it secured all top three positions in the Pre-Medical and Pre-Engineering groups in BISE Rawalpindi's HSSC results. (Dawn, link)
In 2018, a student from the college achieved first position again in the BISE results. (Geo News, link)
The institution has also been covered by 24NewsHD following a transportation incident in 2025. (link)

These reliable, third-party sources demonstrate that the college is independently notable beyond its own promotional materials. I have added verifiable references, improved neutrality, and rewritten the article to comply with Wikipedia content policies. Unknown (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaheemPindiSaidpur The first two sources link to irrelevant articles and the third source leads to an error page. Please do not use LLMs to communicate or write anything on Wikipedia, see WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for notifying me. I'm improving this page Unknown (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG. Links above provided by an editor leads to error, page not found or irrelevant news article. Behappyyar (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, appears that minimal coverage exists outside of social media mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netronome

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reputable sources. Article hasn't been updated in years. Only mention of "Metronome" in scholarly literature is when talking about its products, nothing about the company itself. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing passing mentions, but nothing too substantive for the high standard of WP:NCORP. The best I found are: [1] [2] It would not surprise me if this does meet WP:GNG, I'm seeing a lot of hits on Google Scholar and Books, although as the nom says many of these are in the context of discussing specific products. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helios (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Source 1 barely mentions the company. Sources 2, 3 and 5 are very similar; 3 and 5 appear to be unbylined press releases and 2 is churnalism of the same press release. Source 4 is non-independent as practically all information comes from the mouth of cofounder Alexander Aronson. Sources 6 and 7 don't load (probably a result of using ChatGPT). I can't find any non-routine coverage of the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, Technology, Philippines, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReadPartner

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BEFORE: No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Available references are limited to promotional materials, company‐issued press releases, user reviews on marketing blogs—not sufficient under WP:RS. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Social science, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Austria, and United States of America. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone.com

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BEFORE: The article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Existing references are largely press releases , niche interviews, and trade‑oriented summaries , which do not establish notability under WP:RS. Fails WP:VERIFIABILITY/WP:RS No mainstream media or peer‑reviewed reports; sources are primarily self‑published or industry PR. Independent, editorial coverage is not present. CivicInk (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States of America. CivicInk (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage of this company. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 22:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far, citations on the article pretty much the same.Lorraine Crane (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a startup. Fails the GNG and with a positive outlook TOOSOON. Sources are niche. I found this source that was not among the references. Perhaps one day. Doing is believing. gidonb (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treyd

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace regardless, fails WP:NCORP and is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Ireland, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How is it blatant advertising when I have only included information presented in the different sources? Additionally, all the information provided is cited and written in a neutral language? Cece GFI (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provides working capital solutions to product-based businesses" followed by a list of routine funding rounds. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the description of the company's services, which can be verified. So the issue is how it is worded or what exactly?

How are funding rounds advertisement, yet it is describing the company's history? Once again, the information on the company's funding is published by multiple sources.

Multiple Wikipedia pages on companies, mention funding rounds. How does that make it advertising? Cece GFI (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the company, not just funding rounds. Things that show what the company does, why it's gotten critical notice, new products or services. Not just "company gets money, does stuff". Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; The following is my source analysis (from the article, my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any new/significant sources). Using this revision for source labels.
Sources 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 do not provide any coverage that is both significant and independent except potentially mention of fundraising success. They do not convey notability.
Sources 5 and 6 don’t actually provide significant coverage for Treyd in any form. They do not convey notability.
Sources 2, 4, 9, and 12 all could provide notability but I am not entirely sure (other editors opinions would be greatly valued in regard to these sources). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2, ok fine... Rest aren't anything beyond funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is fine, the rest are about funding. I can only see articles about funding or new executives, nothing about what the company does or why it operates in the market... Source 2 is fine, but it's not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage that isn't just mention of funding rounds. What is the company actually notable for? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Health Care Academy

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

Company fails WP:NCORP as there is no significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, I will go a step further and say that UPE is possibly involved based on the sourcing. American company with all Indian paid-for press that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which can be purchased on any freelance website. CNMall41 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Education, United States of America, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proven WP:GNG. Looked on Google News and only press releases or WP:NEWSORGINDIA that does not satisfy WP:GNG. Looked on Newspapers.com and there was a one-paragraph mention here, and the rest of the 8 results seem to be either false positives, or single mentions as part of "Legal Notices". Looked on Google Scholar and there is a one-paragraph mention here which is apparently a diploma thesis, then there is usage as a reference but no significant coverage here and here, next a dissertation that I can't fully access to verify, and a false positive in a C.V. Google Books seems to turn up only inaccessible books or false positives. Nothing on TWL. One false positive on JSTOR. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Barely any source passes SIGCOV. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A&A Records

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

The article has no reliable sources, appears to be unworthy of note, lacks any independent coverage, and is not on a topic of great publicity. Ziad0tarek952005 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy keep. Satisfies GNG easily with significant coverage in many books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News and the Internet Archive. It is not surprising this satisfies GNG, since it was the largest music retailer in Canada: [3]. To find all the sources, you need to search for both "A&A" (without spaces) and "A & A" (with spaces). Since the nominator removed both the independent reliable sources from the article without any explantion or any apparent good reason [4] [5] and then falsely claimed in this AfD that the article lacked independent reliable sources, and since valid content has been repeatedly removed many times without explantion or any apparent good reason from the article by IPs that geolocate to the country he claims on his userpage to come from (which appear to have been him, judging by their behaviour), and there have been complaints of blatant vandalism by other editors both for his account [6] and those IPs [7] [8], I think we might be able to infer that this nomination has been made for the purpose of vandalism and is a candidate for criteria 2 of WP:SK. James500 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixonic

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

Apparently only has 2 games according to their website. Fails WP:Company. Open to a Merge with My.Games and placing it in a new subsidiaries section. If it's parent company is not notable, then delete this and I will consider a discussion on the parent company. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Cyprus, Netherlands, and Russia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with My.Games. I personally am 50/50 on whether that article's subject is notable, but it needs a major rewrite anyway. If My.Games is notable, then I doubt Pixonic would be under WP:INHERITORG. Merging the two articles (and expanding coverage using reliable sources) may help ascertain notability. Gommeh 🎮 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nippon Life

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

As written, this article contains no reliable sources. While the subject may be notable, in its current form, it appears promotional in tone and does not meet the basic standards for use of reliable source. I recommend deletion for now or move to draftify.Volcom95 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Volcom95 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I agree that the article has significant issues and does need work, however a quick WP:BEFORE on search engines indicates that there is indeed significant coverage from a large number of secondary sources.[9][10][11] We should not draftify as per WP:ATD-I due to the age of the article. From BEFORE: If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. sk satsuma 14:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. sk satsuma 15:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as @Sksatsuma points out, sources which exist in the world not currently being present in the article is not a proper reason for nomination. AfD nominations are not intended as a form of editing / encourage,ent to edit… However, the simplest WP:Before check - clicking on the link to the Japanese version of the article, shows dozens of sources - Nippon Life being one of the biggest companies in Japan. A google search in English shows thousands of hits, just for news articles, from dozens of different reputable news sources. It would be very easy for someone to edit this page, if they wanted.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as has been pointed out earlier, a very simple WP:BEFORE indicates that the company is obviously notable. Additionally, the Japanese Wikipedia has a lot of sources that would qualify as WP:RS that we can use to expand the article. A good alternative to deletion would be to simply add them. Gommeh 🎮 18:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Fab

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

Non notable startup, the sources are only announcements and press releases. No SIGCOV in reliable and secondary sources. Fails Wp:NORG Zuck28 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Spaceflight, United States of America, and Colorado. Zuck28 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided on this at the moment, but here is a BBC article that clearly provides coverage of use to demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel & Amazonka

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

WP:NOTBROCHURE and WP:SBST. Coverage largely lacks significant analysis. Current article is thus essentially what the company wants to say about itself, even if there were sources found (I haven't found anything suitable) it may be better to start from scratch. Coverage in standard BEFORE and ProQuest is mostly the 2024, so it might be possible to redirect Mongolia at the 2024 Summer Olympics after smerging a short blurb or something. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Mongolia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xenics Creative

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

Mostly primary sources given. Searching in Korean I can't find much in news sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sources found in a search either do not constitute significant coverage ([12]) and/or do not appear to be from reputable / independent sources ([13][14]). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are insufficient and I wasn't able to find better ones from a quick search on Google news. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are serious problems with the referencing and the article creator's patterns of editing speak for themselves. Keivan.f^Talk 14:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Hyeong-bin

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

One RS in this (Maeil Business Newspaper); seems to otherwise have insufficient sourcing. Can't find much in Korean language. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Software. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hallo. just google his name in korean you get a plenty of resources from the independent entities. Packer25 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yeah, i agree with the Grapesurgeon, only one reliable source Maeil Business Newspaper is good. Baqi:) (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Combo

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of WP:REFBOMBing, but significant coverage is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and New York. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see why this would make it required to delete, an indie game studio has enough merit to have a wikipage 2A02:E040:14FD:8E00:2829:3F26:6013:AE55 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article and subject matter is of notability as they not only have a long game log but have infact caused a whole type of horror game to become a mainstay, heck there stuff is even on the switch. they have plenty of sources listed and the article itself seams well written and in-depth so i don't get what your issue is? 93.107.85.135 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated on the rationale, "Fails WP:NCORP". Something having many sources or being long and detailed does not mean those sources amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. A company making numerous notable games also does not mean they themselves are notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This is a common misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry but i have to vote to keep the page live. There are various sources on the Puppet Combo page that are noteworthy and gives the page a leg to stand on. Granted, the page could be better structured but i believe someone with interest about Puppet Combo will improve the page. That is just my opinion. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to state what WP:THREE sources you believe give the article standalone notability, so this comes off as less WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation, i saw these sources which give Puppet Combo a leg to stand on: Destructoid; Rock, Paper, Shotgun, VG247, IGN, Vice, The Verge, and PC Gamer. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely for WP:NCORP but perhaps it could be changed to WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing sources in article, borrowing table from WP:SIRS:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?^[A]	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
(1) Game Rant PS1 graphics game list	Maybe	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Debatable significance (three sentences about company but many list entries of their games)
(2) NME interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	YMMV on whether interviews count as secondary, but plenty of non-quoted, reliable, independent material here
(3) Bloody Disgusting interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	N	Another interview, but almost entirely quotes from Cocuzza
(4) Lunchmeat VHS interview	Yes	Yes	Maybe	No	N	Promo tone but not explicitly an ad, but almost entirely quotes
(5) Dread Central article on Sanitarium Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Only one mention of Pig Farmer Games
(6) Bloody Disgusting article on Sanitarium Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Only mentions PFG once
(7) Bloody Disgusting playthrough of Halloween	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Brief mention of PFG, mostly about the playthrough
(8) Bloody Disgusting article on Babysitter Bloodbath	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Mostly about BB, only one mention of PFG
(9) TV Obsessive article on lo-fi horror	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Four paras on Puppet Combo and their games, website is small online mag with many writers + backing uncontroversial claims
(10) GameSpew interview	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	N	Mostly quotes again, claims are uncontroversial
(11) Kill Screen VHS horror list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Sigcov of Power Drill Massacre but no mention of Puppet Combo directly
(12) Kill Screen article on Power Drill Massacre	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Two quotes from Cocuzza but otherwise all secondary, sigcov of Puppet Combo and Power Drill Massacre
(13) Vulture article on low-res indie horror	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of Power Drill Massacre and only photo credit mentions Puppet Combo
(14) Kill Screen Halloween game list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One para on Power Drill Massacre, no mention of Puppet Combo in prose
(15) The Verge article on Patreon for game devs	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One sentence about Puppet Combo, Feed Me, Billy!, and their Patreon
(16) Destructoid review of Nun Massacre	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y?	Sigcov of game (2 paras) and some coverage of company; per WP:DESTRUCTOID, reviews are okay with attribution
(17) Bloody Disgusting announcement for Nun Massacre	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y?	Short article but mentions Puppet Combo and the style of their games in 2/3 paras
(18) GameSpew review of Nun Massacre	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Legit review but only mentions Puppet Combo once in passing
(19) Vice 2018 horror games article	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Three paras about PC and its games; well-researched article despite WP:VICE's ambiguity, used to verify its own quote
(20) Rock Paper Shotgun review of The Glass Staircase	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Three mentions of Puppet Combo, but all in passing and in reference to the game
(21) Destructoid console announcement for Murder House	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	By former Destructoid EIC; a couple of sentences specifically about Puppet Combo, but mostly about Murder House
(22) Bloody Disgusting podcast episode on Murder House	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Half of the prose on page is in-depth about Puppet Combo; could not find working link for podcast episode
(23) Kotaku review of Murder House	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	WP:RSOPINION for reliability; all mentions of Puppet Combo are about Murder House
(24) The A.V. Club 2021 horror games list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention
(25) VG247 best horror games list	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Two short sentences about Puppet Combo
(26) Comicbook.com Murder House announcement	No	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Brief, passing mentions of Puppet Combo
(27) Bloody Disgusting console announcement for Murder House	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Short article with two passing mentions of Puppet Combo, mostly about Murder House
(28) Destructoid article on Murder House icon	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Uncontroversial, properly sourced claims, but few mentions of Puppet Combo
(29) Kotaku article on Murder House icon	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Same as above
(30) Destructoid review of Christmas Massacre	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Sigcov of game and company; see ref 16 for Destructoid review reliability
(31) Bloody Disgusting 2021 list of best horror games	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of Christmas Massacre
(32) IGN best PC horror games list	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Y	Three paras exclusively on Puppet Combo as a whole
(33) CogConnected article on Stay Out of the House	No	Yes	Maybe	Yes	N	Not much about Puppet Combo; website is iffy but author wrote for RSes like Pocket Gamer and ref just verifies game's existence
(34) Indie Ranger press release on Tonight It Follows	No	No	Maybe	Yes	N	Press release written on blog by college student; verifies mostly uncontroversial claims about start of Puppet Combo Presents
(35) The Verge article on lo-fi horror	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	One-sentence mention of PC starting Torture Star Video
(36) Destructoid review of Bloodwash	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	A few short sentences about Puppet Combo
(37) Survival Horror Downloads 2021 list of best horror games	No	Yes	No	Yes	N	Puppet Combo only mentioned by name; comes from blog and has no author
(38) PC Gamer review of Bloodwash	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N	Never mentions Puppet Combo, credits TSV with images
(39) Itch.io page for Scary Tales Vol. 1	No	No	Yes	No	N	Self-published, only about game
(40) Patreon page for The Summoning	—	No	Yes	No	N	Self-published and also locked behind subscription wall
(41) Patreon page for Bloodwash	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(42) Patreon page for The Booty Creek Cheek Freak	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(43) Patreon page for Ding Dong Dead	—	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 40
(44) Puppet Combo tweet about No One Lives Under the Lighthouse	No	No	Yes	No	N	See ref 39

The rest of the refs are all Twitter links, so refer back to ref 39 for those. As the creator of this article, I tried to be as objective as I could about things, but if anyone thinks I mischaracterized anything, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I think this shows that there are more than enough sources available in the article now that allow for it to remain. I've also found more recent refs that I can link below if necessary. (Also, I agree with IgerRM's comment about the article being more in line with WP:ARTIST, since WP:NCORP states that it applies to a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose and Puppet Combo is just Cocuzza.) benǝʇᴉɯ 00:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Click on link to see mentions in reliability lists

Fujairah National Group

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

I would have draftified this but it’s long past the 90 day limit so bringing here for consensus. I’m not sure about notability and my preference is to send to draft for possible improvement. . Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Companies, Travel and tourism, Education, Engineering, Aviation, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (cryptocurrency exchange)

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

Covered mostly in WP:TRADES, crypto publications, or routine corporate events like funding rounds, approvals by regulatory authorities. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCRYPTO. Gheus (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Most of the sources are reputable and pretty much all sort of topics are covered including positive and negative. Funding rounds and being regulated seems positive but at the same time some negative news is also covered about lay-offs and hack attach. The intention and purpose seems to be offering information and adding value which can be improved to keep this article.
5.30.99.194 (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LOUT. Gheus (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Blombger~~ Bloomberg, Reuters and the Dawn source are about how the business runs and was forced to cut staff, seems more than routine coverage of a company. Should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were also the subject of a hack [15], which goes beyond routine business coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hacks are pretty common in crypto world - not an indication of notability. Dawn, Bloomberg, Reuters, are full of quotes and lack in-depth analysis (WP:CORPDEPTH). Gheus (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the American and Arabian business media sources, which are really good and allow for establishing notability as they have more than passing mentions of the crypto exchange. While many sources are quite poor, and that is not good, and slightly too promotional, as for now. Insillaciv (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to point out the sources. Otherwise, it looks WP:LLM output. Gheus (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Bottom Entertainment

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

I am nominating this article to be deleted as it fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG and WP:PROMO.

The only independent significant coverage I can find that wasn't written by Rock Bottom Entertainment themselves is the scant passing mention in Michigan Chronicle, where one of the artists praised is the owner of the label and the mention amounts to barely a paragraph. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost no releases, no notable artists, no cultural impact. Appears to be self-promotion and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. Chubbles (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a search for sources both online and as well in newspapers and books (given the age of the label), almost minimal coverage, and I cannot find anything that demonstrates notability. sk satsuma 15:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- aside from the primary sources cited, which should be removed to, my search shows lack of SIGCOV for the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Moon

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of significant coverage. There is coverage of one specific controversy involving the studio, but that alone does not confer inherited notability on the studio itself. Contested PROD that claims WP:SOURCESEXIST, but no examples given, nor could I find any in any language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and South Korea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist, independently from the controversy.[16][17][18] Inven is a video gaming outlet, but the latter two — News1 and Pressian — are legitimate news media commonly cited here and their coverage goes beyond simple mentions, reporting about the company's prospect. They are not in the article yet, but I can add them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORPTRIV. The 2nd and 3rd articles are very clearly "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a routine coverage. It's Suwon city goverment investing on the company, which is rare and far from standard. Reports related to the controversy also satisfy audience requirement since newspapers like Yonhap News Agency, Kyunghyang Shinmun, and The Hankyoreh are some of the biggest news agencies in the nation. All of these are best compiled in the article about the company. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a brief 1-paragraph article that says that someone invested in the company. This falls under WP:CORPTRIV as "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital", or something similar. Who did it is irrelevant. I think my point has been made though, so I won't push it further besides stating my opinion you are incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suwon's investment agreement is always a focal point of the regional newspapers due to the major perks and development in the special case city economics, which are stated in the articles, so I disagree with that. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Emiya Mulzomdao's sources grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Mode

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

Contested PROD; company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are trivial announcements or press releases and do not reach the level necessary to indicate this is a notable game developer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguart (watch brand)

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

Created by a blocked UPE. Quill & Pad, Swisswatches Magazine, Business of Fashion, etc are trade publications (WP:TRADES). Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief search shows no sources that stand out wrt ORGCRIT, NOTPROMO BMB etc. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in Swiss media, sources in the article are fairly low-quality: paid coverage, niche trade publications, and one source (GQ) that doesn't actually mention this company at all. Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Daddy Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Attempts to delete/redirect were reversed multiple times, so an AfD is required under policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Washington. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there discussion of a redirect? What did a BEFORE find? Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was attempted to be redirected to 2K Games. It gets a brief mention there, too brief to really merit even a redirect IMO, but it could be valid if people believe it's necessary. None of the people who recreated the article demonstrated any sources, and were largely WP:SPA editors who may have been doing it for promotional reasons, nor could I find any non-trivial sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either 2K (company) or Take-Two Interactive. Doesn't matter in my opinion since they both wind up at the same place. Regardless of how many games it has developed, it is still a company and would be required to meet WP:NCORP by way of WP:CORPDEPTH-type coverage. I am not finding any. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hammel, Green and Abrahamson

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

Lots of mentions and the usual industry listings. But I couldn't find any in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references in the existing articles are not reliable (please read WP:RS). Additionally, my WP:BEFORE search did not yield significant results, and I don’t believe the subject meets WP:NCORP criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this page in January, with the rationale "Nothing here to suggest that this firm might meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The text is sourced almost entirely to its own publicity materials". It was deleted and then restored, but nothing in the page has changed. It gets a good number of passing mentions on JSTOR and on Scholar, but I don't see anything resembling in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Justlettersandnumbers, @Onel5969, @Wcquidditch, and @Spiderone -- I am trying to suggest some edits on the talk page that remove promotional, first party sources and present secondary sources. I hope that you can review and provide some commentary on these as I continue to present additional sources and ideas. Thank you! Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team, most of the edits you've requested seem to be passing mentions or trivia. What fully-independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth have you identified? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers -- I have added a few more suggestions since this note, and will continue to do so. You said that /most/ of the edits are passing mentions, or trivial. Would you be able to identify which of those suggested to-date are least passing/trivial/most up-to-snuff? This would help my continued research and collection. Thank you very kindly! Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team, I just glanced at them – that's why I said "seem to be". You can read the requirements for reliable sources and significant coverage for notability of companies by following the blue links in my previous message. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you @Justlettersandnumbers. I have been familiarizing myself with those resources as of late. I have also been working to suggest edits to remove all first party sources/promotional content. Ethan Olkovikas of HGA's Digital Team (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InfoVision

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

Promotional piece of content of a non notable company. Fails for WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, United States of America, and Texas. LKBT (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article I found 3 sources meriting investigation 1, 2, and 3.
Source 1 appears to very closely match/directly copy a press release and an interview (where the link is blocked by an edit filter) which leads me to discard it as not independent. Source 2 is also similar (although slightly less), but as per WP:SIRS I will ignore it for determining notability because its independence is doubtful.
Source 3 does seem to meet WP:SIRS but on its own can’t convey notability.
Finally through google news I found what appeared to be an independent article but when looking more closely large chunks seem to be poorly attributed quotations and claims from someone involved with InfoVision.
Because of this I do not believe there are enough sources that meet WP:SIRS to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 16:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above examination of sources. The article is borderline promotional. GenuineArt (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. My own WP:BEFORE brought only press releases and promotional pieces. Patre23 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, above examination of sources pretty much summates the argument for failing WP:NCORP and being entirely promotional. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaptionHub

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

This one doesn't hold up to WP:NCORP. There's no real coverage from secondary, independent, reliable sources. Most of what's cited are press releases, interviews with company reps, blog-style promo writeups, and the usual business updates you'd expect from any startup. Nothing here truly points to the company being notable. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zilliz

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

This still reads like a promo write-up. Most of the sources are either primary, not all that reliable, or just routine funding news nothing that actually shows the company is notable in an encyclopedic sense. The page was draftified before by Protobowladdict for these same issues and not much has improved. Still reads more like a pitch than something fit for Wikipedia. I'd say deletion makes sense at this point. Junbeesh (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, United States of America, and California. Junbeesh (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not seem to meet WP:GNG, precisely one source [6] that might establish notability is cited (and even it might not do so). As it is only one source it alone doesn’t establish notability as generally multiple independent sources providing significant coverage (and which don’t just cover “regular” business events) are required.
This source is also the only source that seems to do so, with all sources I found using google news where either not independent or where not reliable sources.
Additionally it, as suggested by the nominator, does read at least somewhat like an advertisement. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 08:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 13:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more like a commercial rather than a Wikipedia article ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baserow

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

Refs fails WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While not all current refs meet WP:SIRS, key sources like TechCrunch [1] and The New Stack [2] clearly do. Both are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The article should be improved by focusing on these higher-quality sources, not deleted.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/05/baserow-challenges-airtable-with-an-open-source-no-code-database-platform/

[2] https://thenewstack.io/baserow-a-no-code-open-source-alternative-to-airtable/ Dahawk04 Talk 💬 03:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – more high quality sources were just added (an article of t3n - Germany's biggest magazine for tech and an article of techround)

Meanwhile other project management tools that are listed alongside Baserow and companies like Airtable, Asana or Notion in the category box beneath only have *one* reference such as "Remember the Milk" WHU2208 (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the within-article sources and ones availble online don't satisfy NCORP or NORG Insillaciv (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Without repeating the notability points already raised (e.g. TechCrunch, The New Stack), I’d add that removing this entry while keeping similar open-source tools with less coverage would create inconsistency. This isn’t just about sourcing, but editorial balance. Improvements are welcome, but deletion feels disproportionate A2025Lex (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Definitely improve instead of unfair deletion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Techcrunch article is an interview and TheNewStack is an install guide, not SIRS. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FPT Software

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

Promotional article on a company that has never cited any in-depth, independent sources and has almost never been substantially edited by independent contributors. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found a computerweekly and bloomberg source which might convey notability. However as one (Bloomberg) is paywalled and the other requires an account I have not actually been able to check this. Most other coverage that I could find (using google news) do not appear to provide notability and/or are not actually independent from FPT Software. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the Computerweekly peace lacks independent content; most of the article is based on an interview with the founder. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason I can now access the Computerweekly article. I do largely agree with your opinion, while I do believe that there are large portions of independent analysis/commentary this is sufficiently hard to determine (due to the fact that some seeming quotes are not marked with “ ”). As such I would argue it should be excluded under WP:ORGIND not because it neccessarily lacks independent content but because If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: I understand the importance of Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and the need for independent, secondary sources. To that end, I’ve identified and am incorporating several reliable, third-party sources that demonstrate significant coverage of FPT Software: Forbes – The Startup Behind Vietnam’s Tech Transformation (Jan 2024) – This article offers detailed, independent coverage of FPT Software’s role in Vietnam’s emergence as a global tech hub, including business impact, partnerships, and strategic growth. CIO.com – Is Vietnam the Next Source for CIO Inspiration? – This piece provides context for Vietnam’s IT services sector and features FPT Software as a key player, discussed from a CIO and enterprise IT strategy perspective. I fully acknowledge that some earlier content may have relied too heavily on primary sources or company-affiliated material. I am actively working to replace promotional language with a neutral tone, cite more secondary sources that provide independent analysis and ensure all significant claims are verifiable through reputable publications. FPT Software is widely recognized as one of Vietnam’s largest IT service providers, with global clients and significant media coverage. Rather than delete the article, I propose continued improvement to align fully with Wikipedia's content standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlien75 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources, now for my analysis of them:

Forbes - This is written by a contributor, consensus amongst editors is that articles written by Forbes contributors are not reliable sources (see WP:FORBESCON) unless they also appear in a print edition which this doesn’t seem to.

CIO.com - Provides significant, seemingly independent coverage, and is not discussed at WP:RS/P.

Thanks again, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sotbella

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

Absolutely unnotable brand and fails to meet NCORP. The sources are undisclosed paid placements and puff pieces. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There is some coverage in independent, non-trivial sources such as:
- Vogue India** – coverage of Sotbella's capsule collection with commentary on Indian heritage ([Vogue India](https://www.vogue.in/promotion/sotbellas-new-capsule-collection-celebrates-indian-heritage)).
- Business Today** – mentions the brand in the context of emerging Indian fashion businesses. Along with this the existing sources in the article helps to meet notability.While the article currently requires cleanup for tone and improved referencing, deletion may be premature given the potential for development. — 111.92.121.62 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfire Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP - there is very little about the studio that isn't related to the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is notable, which it may very well be, it can have its own article, which is common on Wikipedia, such as Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. and similar pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 11 July 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) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This statement implies that Wolfire only has notability because of a lawsuit vs Valve.

However, Wolfire are notable for the first era of Humble Bundle, https://www.gamesindustry.biz/wolfire-games-making-a-success-of-the-humble-indie-bundle

On top of that, their games have a cult classic status with their own notable stories that are related to developer action. Such as Lugaru having it's source made open and subsequently being uploaded to the iOS store and the developers sharing what it was like to be in such a situation (https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing/ Primary Source: https://www.vg247.com/lugaru-clone-pulled-from-app-store-free-upgrades-to-hd-version-offered) while reciever broke into the wider world asking questions about when gun games were simulated too well (https://www.wired.com/story/receiver-2-videogame-violence/)

While induvidually they might be absorbed into another article, together the Valve Lawsuit, Humble Bundle, and their own games aren't connected by anything more than the company and so the page should be expanded to include summaries of their involvement and a "See more" link to the relative pages Skollivoxel (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The presented sources, source 1 appears to be largely about the Humble Bundle rather than Wolfire themselves. Lugaru/Receiver seem to be notable, but notability is not WP:INHERITED from a studio's games, so that argument you are making will not fly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, for example Valve got their notability from the Half-Life series *before* the invention of the Steam platform. Creators get notability directly from their creations. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having press outlets start paying attention to them and write WP:RS about them should be distinguished from simply "assuming" they are notable because one of their games is. You'd think that if Wolfire gained such notability after they released these various games, someone would write directly about them. They largely didn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well now we seem to be back on the circle, you see above that there's a wired article about the sequel game to Receiver, how much press coverage counts? Is it some arbitrarily set number: no. Other than the abundance of video essays, viral videos, and mods for games inspired by mechanics established in their creations establishing their notoriety; The fact it's not just "one of their games" that's notable is why it's not assumption. They have established their name within several series and achievements throughout their existence. Game developers gain notoriety by making games that are acclaimed in the community, and the active participation of said community. This would be like making the claim that Running With Scissors is notable only because of the controversies they have in the press, and not the games themselves. 97.114.171.40 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read notability guidelines on Wikipedia at WP:NCORP. None of what you are describing is how articles on Wikipedia become notable. Only reliable sources about the company itself, nothing else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is currently written, I do think its a bit weak on secondary and independent sources, however I don't believe [Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] is written such that the lawsuit alone would exclude Wolfire from having their own article. That being said, I do believe there are more sources that could be added to this article to make is even stronger. The Game Developer article https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/video-an-indie-approach-to-procedural-animation seems to be a great example of a notable source that should be added and included in this article, rather than deleting the article all together. NovaAmm (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Developer article merely highlights a talk given by Rosen at the publication's parent, GDC. I would consider a redirect to Humble Bundle, with the current state of the article. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blacknorth

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Major lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Companies, and Ireland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen much worst, but the citations are inconsistent. Not sure if this is worth an attempt at a rescue. I'd like to know if anyone has ideas for ATD. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if their film (Here to Fall) is notable it's possible to redirect there and smerge a short blurb. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. To my mind, and while the subject org may have a claim to some notability (as it appears to have been covered in local and industry news), it is difficult to look past the COI/SPA issues, clear inaccuracies (like conflating Kids Emmys and Childrens BAFTAs with their "non-kids" equivalents), and overtly promotional intent (and apparent WP:REFBOMBing) in the article's initial creation. To the extent that perhaps WP:STARTOVER is the best approach. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apryse

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Eleven of the references are the company's own press releases, in addition to which there are several dead links. Some of the remainder are mere mentions. There is some recent noise about the company being up for sale, but we consider that routine coverage or speculation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Colorado. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the current article relies far too heavily on primary sources, however the text is reasonably good from a WP:NPOV standpoint. I wonder if the article can be saved. I see some coverage for example on Google news, are any of these usable? I found the following that seem to be reliable according to WP:Perennial sources from Yahoo News and Reuters:

"Thoma Bravo considers sale of Apryse for more than $3bn". Yahoo Finance. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-07-14.

Vinn, Milana; Vinn, Milana (2025-05-29). "Exclusive: Thoma Bravo explores $3 billion-plus sale of software firm Apryse, sources say". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-07-14.

Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Caleb. As I mentioned in my nomination, the Reuters piece is speculative and based on unnamed sources, it is non-encyclopedic. Announcements of companies being bought and sold is considered routine coverage rather than a basis for demonstrating WP:NCORP notability. The Yahoo article is a rewording of the Reuters article, which is credited in the piece. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for replying and that reasoning makes sense. I do see a lot of these investing / selling announcement articles when perusing various corporation AfCs and other new pages lol. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Gramin Bank

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

Not a notable entity. Lack of independent in depth media coverage. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Gujarat. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Indian bank is supported by substantial coverage and meets the criteria of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sooterout (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per Sooterout. Also, it is only two months old. Coverage is poised to get bigger. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Bank of Baroda Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. The article is written like a press release and there is no significant coverage.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs to be rewritten and additional citations are required. No doubt the article is in terrible condition, but Wp:BEFORE indicates, it's notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Zuck28 (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:BASIC. I agree that it reads like a press release, but that issue can easily be corrected.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brace Yourself Games

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage of the company consists of trivial announcements and mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is connected to Ryan Clark, question is whether those Independent Games Festival nominations etc are sufficient for WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that Clark passes WP:NARTIST due to his primary role at the studio he founded, creating numerous notable games. However, I can't find any RS about him either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is also connected to its partnership with Nintendo on Nintendo's arguably best known IP. See, e.g., coverage from IGN, Inverse. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cadence of Hyrule is unquestionably notable as a game given how incredibly rare it is for Nintendo to license their IP to an indie. However, that is not "inherited" by the studio. Given that it was essentially a one-off situation, it doesn't seem that the studio in itself is notable due to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dream Group

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

Despite having several sources, this article likely fails WP:NCORP since none of them appear sufficiently reliable (they look like promotional puff pieces.) 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion; was PROD-deleted on 1 May 2025. Owen× ☎ 16:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major issues with WP:NEWSORGINDIA (or the Bangladeshi equivalent). Of the 14 references, 3 are press releases, 2 are the company's own website, and none appear to be independent, reliable sources. Vegantics (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT

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

A promotional article about a non-notable institute. The article is heavily based on unreliable and primary sources. No secondary reliable source available to establish Wp:SIGCOV, just passing mentions and trivial mentions.

If we remove, press releases, primary sources and blogs, merely passing mentions are available in actual news portals or wp:RS. Fails Wp:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The institute's founder's article was also deleted recently. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Journalism, News media, Theatre, Organizations, Companies, Fashion, Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BitComposer Interactive

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

Disputed PROD - company fails WP:CORPDEPTH with its coverage consisting of minor announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my PROD dispute message for convenience: GamesMarkt. IgelRM (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Ein Jahr bitComposer: "Gründung in der Krise war Glücksgriff", bitComposer startet durch. IgelRM (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Stone (ski store)

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

One store in Harrogate, not notable Update6 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Sports, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funds2Orgs

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NORG. Although there are a lot of references, all the ones I have checked are simply press releases by either Funds2Orgs themselves or (mostly) by organization that use their service. In the latter case Funds2Orgs is barely (if t all) acknowledged, so actual WP:SIGCOV is missing. Article was subject to a previous AfD and was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funds2Orgs Викидим (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NORG. Full of trivial mentions and press releases, but no significant coverage. The cited article about Elsey was user-generated by a HuffPost contributor, which is equivalent to self-published. - Donald Albury 14:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NORG and WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the company is a significant organization in the charitable shoe drives, their shoe drives and collaborations have received substantial coverage by notable publications, including:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Green Bay Press-Gazette
The Post-Journal
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The Brooklyn Paper

More news articles about Funds2Orgs can be found in the depths of Newspapers.com -- N870 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are perfect illustration of lack of WP:SIGCOV. All of them are articles about something/somebody else, apparently written on a basis of PR materials submitted and mentioning Funds2Orgs in the passing, few times, without providing any details that can be actually used to describe the Funds2Orgs. For example (and I have read all five), the last one retains the style of a press release (“We are excited to launch our first-ever shoe drive in partnership with Funds2Orgs,” said Courtney Benenson, Chair of the LETC Board of Directors.) and in addition says precisely that about the subject of the article:

... Funds2Org will provide the League with funding to build a new playground ...
... proceeds from the sales of the shoes after Funds2Orgs sells them are then used to help the families of the small business.
...Funds2Org is working to help build up these entrepreneurs.
...thanks to the Funds2Orgs initiative
...trade the shoes its collected with Funds2Orgs, which will distribute the footwear to small businesses...

One can easily find the half of the last sequence, practically unmodified, in the article. The following text in the article, Funds2Orgs helped build a new playground for special needs students attending the League School in East Flatbush, Brooklyn is not in the source (see the first bulleted sample for contrast, in our article the future tense magically became the past). Викидим (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Викидим said.

Donald Albury 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While all of the articles about something/somebody else, they showcase Funds2Orgs's collaborations and partnerships with these organizations. Not in the past tense anymore. N870 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all PR. - Donald Albury 17:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Robot

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. As its PROD was contested years ago, I am forced to nominate it for deletion. Jim Rossignol is a possible merge target, though it is also unclear whether that page is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United Kingdom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - The prod was removed due to my comment on the notability. [19] It had multiple mentions in national and international news sites, including The Guardian, PC Gamer and Channel 4 Education's website, as noted on the PROD placer's page. The consensus was to remove the PROD. Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all met.

If notability fails, I would think merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted was more applicable than pure deletion. If deletion is the way, please place in my personal space so I can archinve before deletion if possible. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires more than just a trivial mention. Simple mentions in the media do not fulfill significant coverage. If there is significant coverage you are free to link to it, but the used sources appear to be about a specific game. BTW, I am not suggesting that Fallen City isn't notable and it very well might be, but notability isn't inherited from that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Sir, You Are Being Hunted wouldn't work so well since they also developed The Signal From Tolva. There isn't an obvious single locale for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlitWorks

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

Besides the Hobby Consolas piece, this company would seem to lack enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NCORP. Possible COI concerns with the article's creator so they may not have considered notability when making the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Spain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feature on co-founder Miguel Ángel Horna from Vandal, Blitworks "joining" Larian Studios from Game Developer. IgelRM (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just move it to draftspace, it's better to improve a created article than to create the same article that was deleted

⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Just make it a draft" doesn't work when it will never be notable. Larian Studios is a possible merge target though since BlitWorks became Larian Barcelona. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "Keep" voter in the previous AfD commented that the company has a market cap of £4 billion, but that figure is completely off the mark. Its actual market cap is ₹674 crore (£60 million) [20]. All the references in the article are routine listings, and WP:BEFORE yields nothing substantial either. Yuvaank (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Premium Water

(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) 09:03, 7 July 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) 09:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 'premium' bottled water brand which is just...regular tap water (they don't detail their water sources here or on their website) and just talks about branding opportunities and pitchmen. Nathannah • 📮 17:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a popular brand and has received significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). The existing articles provide in-depth coverage beyond routine announcements and are reliable sources, such as Entrepreneur, Economic Times, and VCCircle. The subject has also been covered in reputable sources (WP:RS) like India News, APB Live, and Hindustan. Baqi:) (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indian editors are not including WP:NEWSORGINDIA for fun and the sources mentioned are unfiltered press releases (70 families getting a water source is nothing). We don't care who they pay to get water rights or get to push their water during sporting events, we care about reliable sources about what the company is and what they do. Nathannah • 📮 23:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any article I found about it all use the same churnalism buzzwords that are hallmarks of the paid-for puff pieces that aren't suitable for notability requirements. Moritoriko (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is supported by non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources, including The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, Economic Times, and VCCircle. These sources provide more than routine announcements and contribute to establishing notability under WP:GNG.ReshamGi (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are not enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, they are not more than routine announcements. Moritoriko (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources invoked by the two "keep" voters are either trivial announcements or poorly written press releases masquerading as news stories (classic WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Yuvaank (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netcore Cloud

(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) 09:02, 7 July 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) 09:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is notable per NCORP, 'cause it has several reliable sigcov references, including Times of India bootstrap story about [21], Business Standard [22], BusinessMatter [23] while Economic Times also have good overview and independent thoughts on the topic. Insillaciv (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my online search suggests, the company is old and GNG-eligible as it has significant coverage in CNBC (Tv18)Economic Times, Business Day and other. Interestingly, it also received a critical (not pleasant) highlight about how Airtel India blocked Netcore services in article Airtel blocks Netcore services (Business Standard). It should be added to the page. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above-mentioned sources satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The Times of India story is a PTI press release as stated at the bottom of the article. The two Economic Times articles are trivial acquisition announcements. It takes roughly five seconds to see that the Business Matters article is a self-published puff piece on "our illustrious journey". The Business Standard report does not count toward notability per WP:ILLCON. Yuvaank (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STS Group (Dubai)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organization is the largest school transport provider in the country, has quite a lot of coverage from Khaleej Times & Gulf News. The UAE govt has collaborated with the company [24]. It's most certainly notable here. jolielover♥talk 13:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well-cited in various media, including Khaleej and similar outlets. More sources could perhaps be added. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joina City

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

No real sources, no non-routine coverage coming up on Google. Originally created by an account that is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. -- LWG ^talk 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage, fails WP:NBUILDING. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The current article depends upon a single source, which is a step up from original research. The bit about undisclosed paid editing gives off pay to play vibes. Bearian (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far, this kind of came close, but the video content featuring it has already been removed.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page does not appear to meet WP:NRHP and WP:GNG as it is a commercial property lacking sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources.--FreaksIn 17:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per other above; fails WP:NBUILDING. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 15:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 15:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched about the company using different search engines but couldn’t find much substantial information. Even among the existing articles, the first one is merely an interview, which is not considered reliable, and the second source is completely dead. Baqi:) (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find SIGCOV for the organization so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was kept at AfD just over a year ago, so it would be good to have some explanation of why the previously identified sources aren't adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Siren

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

Disputed prod, only work that has been done on the article is the addition of single, primary source (pr from the company to the local paper). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG, nor WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will have to revisit this for an !vote but I'm surprised to say I'm inclined towards a weak keep. The Canon City source is weak, but limited RS coverage, both with ([25]) and without ([26], [27], [28]) substantial SIGCOV, are enough to give me pause. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ComplyAdvantage

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

Almost entirely promotional with serious WP:COI concerns and lacking WP:RS to independently establish notability. Amigao (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - the article does seem to use sources that are not commonly deemed reliable, however, the tone, I suppose could be improved.

Kvinnen (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This company is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pinging @Liance: who was the AfC reviewer. There are content issues, but putting those aside for the moment the page meets WP:NCORP. You have to weed through the mentions and routine announcements, but then there are staff written articles that meet WP:CORPDEPTH in Business Insider and ComputerWeekly. Here are a few book sources out of the hundred or so found in Google Books as well. As WP:DINC, the COI can be tagged and someone can cleanup when they have an opportunity. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do CNMall41's sources satisfy WP:NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While ComputerWeekly appears to meet WP:NCORP the only other source I could access (book) provides a paragraph summarising what ComplyAdvantage is, alongside 6 other mentions that I can’t view (due to limitations in what google books will show). While this may nominally meet WP:NCORP, unless the other mentions are more substantial I don’t think it is “significant coverage” because it is a singular paragraph within a 233 page book. I am unable to access any of the other sources provided by CNMall41, and so can neither confirm nor refute that they meet WP:NCORP. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BI article is not paywalled so maybe it is a browser issue. It is written by a staff writer of Business Insider so it has full editorial oversight. The title is "This London fintech aims to become the worst enemy of money-laundering terrorists and oligarchs" and covers the company in-depth (meeting WP:CORPDEPTH), including a potential IPO of the company, the founder, and other information in the 15 paragraph article. For books, there rarely are books that are written about a company as a whole, but the fact that so many mention it shows that it is worthy of notice. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with CNMall41, the sources provided by them are enough to confirm the notability. Gepeas (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PatPat

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentions, routine announcements, and churnalism. There was an announcement about a possible IPO but that obviously never came to fruition. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 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 03:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Family (food company)

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

I came across this article after seeing Draft:HealthyBaby at AfC. I don't see anything here except primary sources, passing mentions, and routine coverage. In my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find any independent, secondary coverage upon which to build an article. The article history suggests that this was created for promotional purposes, and its primary author is blocked for "inappropriate emails". MediaKyle (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much growth or coverage since 2012. Author was also found to be a sockpuppet of Morning277. Looks purely promo so should be on the chopping block imo Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find independent sources on this company: [29], [30], [31]. The third is probably RS, but I don't know about the other two. Based on the other articles they publish, they look rather uncritical and fluffy. If these sources could be shown to be RS, I would suggest keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not as it is written by a contributor. The second looks like some kind of blog of commercial website so would not see it as reliable. The third, byline from an editor, from Inc. would be in-depth and reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Shazi Visram. The majority of the sources focus on her and the founding of the company, such as this and even the Inc. reference mentioned previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stormind Games

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

I believe it clearly fails WP:NCORP. This is the closest thing to SIGCOV I can find (though, ironically, not used in the article at all), but other than that it appears to be entirely trivial or not fulfilling WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited from a company's games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some other useful articles. [32] [33] [34] [35][36]. Are they helping? Thank you EneaCirce (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The repubblica/italian.tech article looks on the edge of the criteria. Generally, 3 sources in-line with the guidelines are necessary. IgelRM (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see this discussion for further context. Noteworth bits include the article creator having a WP:COI and generally getting advice and getting some general advice that this probably isn't meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, neither of which prevented the draft getting published apparently. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the notability criteria for companies is stricter than the games they produced, given that they have their own notability criteria, but not for games. Or maybe its just that they don't really write about the company and focus on games instead. I'm surprised that it even went thru AfC and expected that reviewers should accept drafts that have a good change to not be nominated for (or survive an) AfD. I've been a reviewer since the start of the year. JuniperChill (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the criteria are exactly the same for companies and their games. NCORP is just a specific way of applying GNG, making it more clear what is and isn't significant coverage. The issue is that games are more notable than companies, because most companies only matter in a rather geographically confined area or employ a very small amount of people, whereas the games are distributed globally and get the coverage that entails. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP, with very little in the way of significant coverage besides a Planet Half-Life profile. I am nominating this for AfD due to a previous discussion that resulted in a merge here, so it can't be said not to be "controversial". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. While there isn't much coverage specifically about the company itself, they appear to be a significant developer in gaming history. Their games have received substantial coverage, which, in my view, supports a keep.Darkm777 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NARTIST can sometimes allow for that, but companies do not fall under that and are required to pass WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. This is not a case where notability is inherited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen64 has details on their last game "They Hunger: Lost Souls", I would consider a merge/redirect to List of Source mods. IgelRM (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a company and reviews of their games do not grant WP:INHERENT notability. I cannot find coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT but willing to review again if anyone can point out the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Black Widow Games is one of the oldest modding groups in the history of modern gaming history. Their works have both recieved press coverage and to my knowledge, have even been cited in a book dedicated to culture and videogame innovation. I think with all this combined, it warrants a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemStoppingBy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote. As requested previously with others, can you name the WP:THREE. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chapter 6 of Dr. Dennis Redmond’s *Satellite Uplink*, and his dissertation

An extensive analytical essay that profiles Black Widow Games in-depth. Satellite Uplink, Chapter 6 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150926231928/http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/PP6.html). Later cited twice in Dr. Redmond’s PhD dissertation, Videogame Culture as Transnational Media: One Neoliberalism, Many Resistances (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, pp. 69 & 322) (https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/42310).

2. Planet Half-Life’s Five Days of Fear

A five-part, multi-page deep dive by GameSpy’s Planet Half-Life writer John “Chief” Philips. Covers the company’s 1997 origins, accomplishments, interviews with Einar Saukas & Neil Manke, and the future of “They Hunger: Lost Souls.” (Note: Page 2 of both “Day 3” & “Day 5” are missing from archive.) (https://web.archive.org/web/20121107001442/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=1).

3. TheGamer — “Sony Once Commissioned A Half-Life Mod To Promote The First Underworld Movie — And It Was Amazing”

A retrospective by Eric Switzer about how Sony Pictures commissioned Black Widow Games to create an official tie-in mod for the Underworld movie. (https://www.thegamer.com/half-life-mod-underworld-bloodline-history-vampire-the-masquerade-bloodhunt/).

4. Honorary 4th — Extensive PC Gamer Coverage.

- USS Darkstar & They Hunger episodes 1–3 featured on demo discs packaged (Issues #63, #69, #75, #85; 1999–2001).

- They Hunger included in PC Gamer’s *“10 Scariest PC Games Ever”* (Issue #103; Nov 2002, p. 102).

- They Hunger: Lost Souls featured in behind-the-scenes articles and a two-page spread (Issues #157 & #162; 2007–2008).

For an early Half-Life modding studio — though niche — I feel the amount and quality of sourcing here exceeds what is often seen for similar topics or even more niche topics that survive AfD scrutiny. The combination of academic, industry, and mainstream retrospective coverage clearly demonstrates that Black Widow Games has received significant, independent, reliable coverage and therefore merits a standalone article under WP:GNG. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a decent argument here that Neil Manke is notable per WP:NARTIST as the studio's creator and game designer. Especially since he is largely referred to by name in that first source. Not sure I'm convinced the studio is though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, Manke is integral to the Black Widow Games story (as it dissolved when he disappeared); Einar Saukas, Magnus Jansén, Jack Cooper, Paul Taylor, and Dave Waters are also mentioned further down in the first link’s text as they worked with Manke in the “They Hunger” and a number of other projects.

They are also mentioned in the Planet Half-Life’s interviews along with their new talent. These folks would’ve been involved in Link #3’s project as that was the last published project Black Widow Games made (and were later involved with “They Hunger: Lost Souls”). MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I simply disagree that thee sources show notability for Black Widow Games. From being about the games they made to only being about a single one of the devs, these exemplify the incorrect notion that "notability is inherited". It's possible that Niel Manke or more of the devs who worked for Black Widow Games pass WP:NARTIST, but that has no bearing on this discussion and another page should be created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCESEXIST. Simply believing they exist will not magically will them into existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — In continuance and conclusion with my discussion with Zxcvbnm — WP:GNG and WP:NCORP ask whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources — and the cited sources clearly profile Black Widow Games as a collective entity.

Three of the four sources provided dedicate sections specifically to the studio itself. Dr. Redmond’s text, while focusing in part on Neil Manke’s design philosophy, makes it clear it is within his capacity of Black Widow Games, referring to the full lineup at the time and later citing the studio by name in his dissertation. Planet Half-Life’s Five Days of Fear series interviews every then-member of Black Widow Games and their approach to They Hunger: Lost Souls, along with previously documenting its the studios’ history, not to mention Planet Half-Life covered Black Widow Games many times. PC Gamer likewise featured behind-the-scenes coverage of the studio in issues #157 and #162 in the same capacity to Five Days of Fear.

This level of coverage clearly exceeds the threshold set by WP:NCORP and satisfies WP:GNG; Again. I feel this level of coverage here exceeds what could normally be asked of such an early creator in the mod scene— The combination of academic, industry, and mainstream retrospective coverage clearly demonstrates that Black Widow Games has received significant, independent, reliable coverage that should warrant keeping despite AfD scrutiny. So I ask that you and CNMall41 re-examine and re-evaluate your votes based on this information extending beyond the claim of inherited notability as there are very few groups like this that can claim notability to warrant an article. But this as I outlined, should be one of them as it provides an outlier to many firsts in the larger context of video game modding history. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Gaddar Film Awards

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

Also see Telangana Gaddar Film Awards of 2024 up for deletion. Notability tag was objected to here so I did a thorough WP:BEFORE and found only announcements, press releases, and the typical churnalism that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The only thing it could possibly be notable for would be this controversy but do not think that rises to the level of notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is linked to notable article of Telangana Gaddar Film Awards the 1st ediiton, stop your non sense. I dont understand why you editors waste time of yours and others by nominating every new article for deletion. Stop your non sense going forward. It is common sense if academy awards are notable, the 1st edition is notable. Dont you have common sense. The article is widely covered by all media houses and it is highly notable than academy awards. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Who are you to decide it is not notable I am asking? Are you from Telangana state of India? In what way you decide that it is not notable when you dont understand its film culture, state, country and geography ? There are already tons of sources I cited and it is widely covered by all media houses. A street beggar in Hyderabad knows about these awards.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The street begger will need to come to Wikipedia and voice their !vote. In the meantime, please see WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Yes. You are not even part of the respective country and culture. You talk about the Telugu culture related article's notability which is extensively covered by all media houses of India. I dont understand how agenda driven editors such as you find time in wasting everyones time here. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukshmadarshinisrilanka you can't !vote multiple times so I suggest striking the Strong Keep part of your responses. S0091 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not starting by listing sources because there's already ample coverage here. And yet, valid Indian sources are being dismissed wholesale under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. That guideline was never meant to blanket-discard Indian sources at AfD but rather to serve as a cautionary flag for closer scrutiny against paid-for news. In practice it has become a slippery slope where Indian entertainment journalism is reflexively deemed unreliable and articles are sent for deletion.

Take The Hindu here as a case in point, one of India's most reputed newspapers. The nominator has flagged one of their articles as unusable in their rationale, likely because it lacks an author byline. But that's only one of the indicators to be cautious about when assessing whether a source is paid in NEWSORGINDIA, it is not a conclusion in itself. In Indian journalism, lacking bylines is often standard practice for entertainment pieces. Other than film reviews, most entertainment coverage in The Hindu appears under the generic "Hindu Bureau" byline. There is no indication that all such articles are unusable as many deal with real-world events and provide critical coverage that is clearly not paid for. Is this article on The Devil Wears Prada 2 resuming filming from Hindu Bureau also an example of NEWSORGINDIA? That would be an absurd conclusion to draw based on the criteria at hand.

Now, to the awards themselves: they are the highest accolades in film given by Telangana, the home state of the Telugu film industry. For unfamiliar editors, this is the same industry that produced RRR. These awards are directly comparable to those instituted by other Indian states with comparable film industries, such as the Karnataka State Film Awards, Tamil Nadu State Film Awards, Kerala State Film Awards, Nandi Awards, Maharashtra State Film Awards, and Odisha State Film Awards.

DeluxeVegan (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:NAWARD. The article cites multiple reliable, independent sources, including Times Now, Deccan Herald, and Deccan Chronicle, which provide significant coverage of the awards’ establishment, winners, and controversies. These sources demonstrate sustained media attention, including a reported controversy about the jury’s selection process, which further underscores public interest. Charliehdb (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal so holds no weight. S0091 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:SUSTAINED. Similar for WP:NEVENT's WP:LASTING. This is new award held in 2025 for films released in 2014-2024 which aimed to replace the defunct Nandi Awards. All the sources, except South First, are dated May 30th with South First dated a couple weeks later in June. The ones dated May 30th are standard announcements/press releases about who won so are primary sources thus do not help with notability. South First is excellent, outlining the history, controversies and that many awardees did not attend (most of which is not reflected in the article). However, one source does not establish notability and still leaves the issue with SUSTAINED/LASTING. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There're additional sources in The Indian Express and The Hindu (Frontline) that are bylined and talk about the awards in a political/critical space. These plus discussion per above is sufficient for keep. WeWake (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those were published in mid-June, same as First South, so still have the issue with meeting WP:SUSTAINED. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Honestly, I don't feel there's been enough time to warrant a deletion per WP:SUSTAINED. Given WP:NTEMP, I'm sure these concerns can be revisited if needed. — WeWake (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair response, @WeWake. It's not enough for me to flip but I get it. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ as discussed above clearly Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already !voted. S0091 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So all western country awards are notable, and Asian country awards are not notable. But I thought this is Wikipedia right? not wikipedia for the Americas? Pls correct me if I am wrong. It is covered by all third party media houses. It is as notable as Golden Globe Awards, no second thought in that. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukshmadarshinisrilanka the Golden Globe has existed since 1944 so that is not good comparison because this award is brand new. See Category:Asian film awards which has hundreds of articles but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make in an AfD. S0091 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This honestly echos the same veiled accusations put on by the SCOT sock farm so please do not go there. Notability is notability and there is nothing about notability that depends on location. It is about sourcing and there are none here that show it. Please see WP:ATA as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree with you. You are not getting it these are "Official Government Awards" to recognize (Telugu cinema). There is no other Govt Award from the state of Telangana. These are not private Awards. These Awards are going to continue in the coming decades. It is not a one off thing. We have to retain the Main article.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to disagree, but your argument is now WP:CRYSTALBALL. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No It is not crystal ball or cricket ball. These are live awards given by Government no presumptions or speculations here. Just because you read wikipedia text book doesnt mean you post all wikipedia jargon here. Learn to explain in simple words. Dont use wikipedia business and admin jargon. It wont make you more knowledgeable than me. Using wikipedia jargon has become a fashion to wikipedians of the Americas.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing nationality into your argument which is disheartening. I would advise heeding the warning left for you by OwenX. Will need to be addressed at WP:ANI should it happen again.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Star Books

AfDs for this article:

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

Three years have passed since a refund following a soft delete. This article still does not meet NCORP guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Companies, and Canada. Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG pass. Discussed in multiple published works, including:

The Perilous Trade: Book Publishing in Canada, 1946-2006 (2012)
Publishing Lives: Interviews with Independent Book Publishers in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia (1996)
The Globe and Mail, "New Star Books to wind down, publisher cites BC Arts Council funding issues", 29 January 2025
Publishers Weekly, "Vancouver’s New Star Books Ceases Acquisitions", 29 January 2025
Quill and Quire, "New Star Books to close" 16 January 2025 (Quill & Quire)

More can likely be found in the depths of Newspapers.com. MediaKyle (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns:

PW and Q&Q are trade news, for which NCORP clarifies that a higher standard is needed to establish independent coverage.

The GM article is primarily about the BC Arts Council.

Publishing Lives, as the title indicates, is a primary source with little commentary, whilst NCORP requires secondary sources.

There is something a little more substantial in the Perilous Trade, but out of the one to two pages, New Star is covered along with other publishers, and is not exclusively emphasised. Dege31 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PL, and TPT, are already included in the article. Dege31 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's a few more just for good measure:

A New Star is rising in publishing, The Vancouver Sun
Smaller publishers land on BC Book Prizes shortlist, The Vancouver Sun
Publishers still suffer Chapters fallout, The Vancouver Sun
Benefit to help New Star Books repair after firebombing, The Georgia Straight (there is also 4 other news articles covering the arson event cited in the article)

The publisher has been around for a long time, and not only been the subject of specific coverage on numerous occasions over the years, but was also written about in-depth in at least two books, which is not trivial. All of these things put together makes this a GNG pass. Besides all that, articles about notable publishers are of encyclopedic value. MediaKyle (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the two books- one is a primary source, the other one is on the edge of significant coverage. The first one is not an NCORP valid source. The second one maybe passes (I'll leave it to the discretion of others who will participate in the discussion), although it isn't exactly in-depth.

Writing about the arson is primarily something that gives notability to the event, not the publisher. A local incident, which is not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 2. Smaller publishers- brief mention of non-notable prize - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 3. Publishers still- two statistical sentences - not NCORP significant coverage.

Source 1. A New Star is rising- this article is mostly about books published by New Star. This is points to the book's notability, and the corporation does not inherit this notability. The few paragraphs that are about New Star are either primary, or largely routine. In fact, I think this source might be an advertisement (sure looks like it, especially given its placement next to the section at the bottom) which would make it a fail of NCORP on multiple levels, but I don't at the moment have newspapers.com access.

My suggestion would be the creation of an article about Canadian small press publishing, where this subject would also be incorporated. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MediaKyle. While well-meaning, the criticisms are excessive. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doublesix

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourcing is extremely weak. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doublesix was a developer that created multiple video games for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PC, iOS and Wii.

https://www.mobygames.com/company/10593/doublesix-video-games-ltd/

Moreover, if this entry is false, then what studio developed Burn Zombie Burn?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Zombie_Burn 2407:C800:432B:D800:5464:9A5D:66B2:F623 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the article is false. Merely being true does not make something suitable for inclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it being deleted. The studio existed and made games that were released to the general public. Gemuguru (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being the maker of notable games does not instantly confer notability onto a company. The company itself has to be covered sufficiently by sources, which in some cases it is, but in this case it's not. In this case the article violated notability critera since you created it, but it just flew under the radar for years. I'd recommend reading WP:GNG and WP:NCORP carefully if you intend to make new articles in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a company that can be proved to have exist and has evidence that made and released games is going to be cut because you don't like it? It makes no sense. You already have articles on Wikipedia that cite the developer in this instance, and multiple external sources that prove it existed. Gemuguru (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if the company existed and released games it should still be listed. Or is this the wiki for some thing and not All things? 24.112.250.163 (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't for "all things", that's why WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT exist as policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at it, I can see that neither policy has a term that this article is specifically breaching. Please provide the actual term that, by your reasonable interpretation, this article may be breaching. 2605:B100:149:201F:6047:E8FF:FECA:73AC (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju (company). IgelRM (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doublesix should have its own entry. Gemuguru (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions on outcomes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per previous relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kuju. I'm not seeing any SIGCOV at all, only things that come up are a few articles on the games they made. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am going to be a contrarian and vote to keep the page. Doublesix worked on a bunch of games, according to their page at MobyGames. The best thing Gemuguru can do, since he his expressing interest in keeping the page alive, is to find sources listing or mentioning Doublesix as a developer or co-developer of the games mentioned on their MobyGames page and make a list with said sources. The other thing that can be done to not lose the information is to merge the page into another for the time being until more sources discussing Doublesix are found. Those are my only two cents i will give about this matter. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I was provided good information about the game studio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4800:460:40A9:84BA:8DCD:5E45 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aggro Crab

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is almost entirely about their games, not the studio themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as author) with sources about the organization:
- Game Developer- more about the studio following the game, focuses on their funding issues among other things.
- GameRant source about the studio's next game and decent depth of studio rather than just Another Crab's Treasure.
- GamesIndustry covering their response to Team17 releasing NFTs.
- GamesRadar+ covering info about the studio and team getting broken in to.
- GamesRadar+ info about the studio discussing changes to a coding application.

Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are largely about their video games, and otherwise very WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of the studio themselves. There is a clear lack of WP:SIGCOV here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly being about their games should contribute to GNG as coverage is not about a specific game Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization." See also WP:ORGTRIV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the coverage about funding, also found at GamesRadar+ not coverage about the organization? Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that is also trivial coverage. It's just restating one social media post by them. Just because they are an indie darling whose every post gets picked up by game journalists does not imply SIGCOV, as there needs to be substantive discussion about the studio. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the sourcing presented is insufficient, delete. IgelRM (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:42, 12 July 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⁺⁺ 17:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to be high-quality and in-depth about the subject.ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please state which of the sources you believe are high quality and indepth, not WP:SOURCESEXIST. It would legitimately help with the AfD if you did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holborn Adams

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

Does not meet GNG and sounds a bit promotional. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle Bash007 Thank you for your other message and feedback. I created the page because a link existed on another page that was red and didn't go to a page that existed. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation and I have seen other similar pages so assumed this was fine so long as there are notable references available. The references are all news articles. I have made some changes in line with your feedback to make sure the copy is purely informational. It is not intended to be promotional but factual and I hope this improves it. There were also links on other Wikipedia pages to this page that should now work rather than link to a page that does not exist. Are these improvements suitable? Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm so I'm kind of unsure where to go with this one... On the one hand the topic does seem notable but on the other there do appear to be genuine concerns about promotion with some coverage reading almost as paid (see [37] for example). I would say leaning keep for now with a mind to revisit in a year or two when more editors than just this one have had a crack at the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback @Horse Eye's Back. I created the article because there was a link to this page in red on another page that wasn't working, so Wikipedia suggested article creation. I have made some improvements to it in line with what another editor suggested. I thought that a wider selection of news sources would be useful, which is why that one was used, but I see your point about that coverage reading promotional in tone so I have removed it as I understand the importance of articles being neutral and purely informational. Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with points initially raised, but seems to have improved since in tone and news sources, so probably on balance now seems okay to keep. Leverdusoleil91 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 11 July 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 *about 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. We've either got mentions-in-passing, or articles that rely entirely on interviews with the founder or quotes from the firm. Maybe an article on the founder, Adam Rasul, might pass GNG but this article doesn't. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changes to the article have occurred since the AfD notice and discussion in order to make the corrections that were recommended by nominator Uncle Bash 007 on a talk page and others. The page was created because a link on another page to this page did not work because it didn't exist. Wikipedia therefore suggested page creation, so there are now several mutual links to/form other Wikipedia articles present and working properly (eg.[38] and [39]). Since the notice and discussion, more news sources have been added to support GNG requirements and tone amendments also made. Independent sources include reputable news outlets (BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, Sky News, The Times and others) as well as magazine articles written by journalists giving significant coverage.Greenfieldsgreentrees (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The test is for in-depth "independent content" *about the company* in reliable sources.

The BBC article you reference doesn't even mention Holborn Adams, the company.
The Reuters article contains one single sentence which is a quote from a statement from Holborn Adams. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
There are two articles from the Guardian. This one contains a single sentence which mentions that company by name and provides zero details of the company. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next one is equally short and does not provide any indepth independent content sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
Sky news mentions the company in two sentences, simply to repeat what the lawyers said. Also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
The Times article mirrors the exact points/quotes from the Sky News article and fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND for the same reason.

"Coverage" is not part of the criteria, especially if the covereage is simply mentions of the name of the company or things one of the company's employees said. Notability is not inherited and just because this law firm represented people with a high profile does not mean that suddenly they are notable for that reason. We require sources which write about the topic company in details, providing independent analysis/opinion/etc on the company. None of those articles come close to what is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - high profile law firm with notorious criminal clients; has significant coverage as detailed above. Bearian (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's source analysis. NCORP requires SIRS. There's no secondary coverage here. Almost all of the coverage in the article are primary source run-of-the-mill stories about the firm representing clients in various circumstances. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trybooking

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

The sources are terrible with not independent reliable and broad topic coverage. This is not a notable company, at least for Wikipedia. Let zoom to some particular sources: [40] this one is a routine announcement on the not very reliable and quite niche website; [41] the same with this - it's not a reliable coverage, nor a reliable website and we need multiple sources (not a series of news from 1 website). [42] this one is almost good, aside from the fact it's slightly overfocused on the citations from the company members, but it could be okay. [43] this one is a reliable but not providing significant coverage, some interview citations and general information focused on the 10 anniversary date. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst work is needed on finding further sourcing, the article meets WP:NCORP already and shouldn't be deleted. [44] and [45] are from a specialized trade publication The Ticketing Business with editorial oversight, meeting WP:RS. The article also has secondary sourcing from two notable sites already. Many platforms similar to Trybooking have limited media coverage, but are used extensively. A quick search through Google News finds TryBooking referenced by a significant number of events, and although these sources are not suitable for including in the article, shows broader market presence. [46] also shows that they have over $1 billion in ticket sales cumulative, also establishing wider notability.
I will have a look at this page again to see if I can expand, particularly to see if there is any negative coverage that I haven't identified. Agent Squash (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a controversies section now with more notable sources (including the SMH). Agent Squash (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2 and 6 are fine, directly about the company, The Sydney newspaper source in the article is fine, but that's not enough. I found this [47], vaguely mentions being an "advertorial" at the bottom, so it's iffy for a RS. We have enough to show CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources has the reliable deeply focused on the subject coverage. Number 2 [48] for instance has only quotations from the management:

Mr McAlister, who was CEO at POLi Payments, said TryBooking learnt .....

“We waited a full 10 years to move international so we could focus completely on our existing customers,” he said

According to the CEO, the expansion to New Zealand, launching in November...

“Kiwis love similar live events that we Aussies love; music events, local sporting events, education events,” Mr McAlister said.

Another source [49]:

"The event organiser has not cooperated.....," TryBooking CEO Jeff McAlister said.--2603:7000:6240:47C2:64E9:EC55:8041:BD69 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 2603:7000:6240:47C2:64E9:EC55:8041:BD69 - This argument misunderstands WP:NCORP. Coverage needs to be "significant", not "deeply focused". Equally, the claim that Source 2 only has quotations from management is demonstrably false, as the article contains substantial independent reporting beyond the CEO's quotes. This is standard business journalism with management quotes providing context within substantial independent reporting. Furthermore, the source isn't editorial, and as per WP:THEAUSTRALIAN is considered generally reliable. The same applies with Source 6 - there is substantial original journalism in the article, and the quote of the business doesn't damage that. The article is already beyond the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. I note this IP has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Agent Squash (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Agent Squash - your argument misunderstands the WP:ORGIND part of NCORP - "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. There is zero "independent content" in source 2 - each factoid is attributable directly to the company and it is clear that this reference can be classified as an advertorial. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 11 July 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. The following is a look at the references in the article:

-

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?
"How TryBooking quietly built a $1 billion ticketing empire". news.com.au. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	An Advertorial that relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs	There is no in-depth independent content - the last "A Costly Legal Dispute" section is brief
"Trybooking caps off 10 years with NZ push". Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Another advertorial that relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs	There is insufficient independent in-depth information
"Free ticket scanning app launched by Australia's TryBooking". Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Reads like a press release and clearly regurgitating company news	No in-depth content sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH
"Punters Not Happy As Refund Confusion Plagues Axed Maitreya Festival". Retrieved 2025-07-11.		Insufficient in-depth content about the company (none) fails CORPDEPTH.
"Maitreya Festival: Dance music promoters sued by TryBooking over missing ticket money". Retrieved 2025-07-11.		Insufficient in-depth content about the company (none) fails CORPDEPTH.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @HighKing - I am sorry, but I must dispute the accuracy of your analysis of the sources. Source 1 is published by a reputable news organisation, has an editorial byline, and contains editorial judgement and analysis including a revenue comparison with Eventbrite. Although the company has provided details for the article in the interview, this does not change the fact it was published by a secondary source which is unaffiliated to the subject, and is not an advertorial. Furthermore, as per WP:CORPDEPTH:

"Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." This article provides a clear overview and discussion about the business.

Source 2 is from another reputable source (see WP:THEAUSTRALIAN), is published with an editorial byline. The Australian also clearly marks sponsored content, which disproves your claim that this is another advertorial. Again, the article provides an overview of the business, meeting WP:CORPDEPTH

The third source could be deemed slightly weaker and could potentially be removed.

I would also disagree with your analysis of the sources from The Music and SMH. These sources provide analysis and evaluation of the controversy, and contain discussion about the business' approach to handling refunds. In addition, The Music even provides commentary from a competitor (Oztix) challenging TryBooking's business practice.

If we were to dismiss sources as per your interpretation, we would practically have no business content on Wikipedia. You appear to require that each source contain opinion, analysis, investigation, AND fact checking simultaneously. WP:ORGIND doesn't require all elements in every source - it requires that sources include these types of independent content. The Australian provides analysis and fact-checking, while SMH provides investigation. Together, they clearly satisfy WP:NCORP.

On a final note, I note the purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH is to make it possible for articles to be more than a stub - which this article clearly is having been ranked as C class prior to the edits during the AfD process. Agent Squash (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "more than a stub" comes with the implicit assumption of "not including content covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", which is why you, as the article creator, have to actually explain why it overcomes the presumption created by WP:CORPROUTINE and (for the articles that are something like 75% quotes, 300 out of the 400 or so words like the The Australian article, as well as those covered by WP:TRADES), you have to explain why it meets WP:ORGIND instead of just saying "it's an RS!" "it has a byline!" like that's actually a meaningful response when the issue are the other criteria, not the R part of WP:SIRS. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity on what is expected by the policy. This is my first time being involved in an AfD and I am still getting my head around the nuances of all the policies that impact. That being said, there is no evidence that these articles were advertorials like previously claimed. These articles are standard in the world of business journalism.

I would still argue that the news.com.au, SMH and The Music articles do overcome that assumption, and meet WP:SIRS. The news.com.au article is a full feature analysing how they built their business, providing details on strategy, and analysis such as the comparison to Eventbrite's funding model. Likewise, the articles from the SMH and The Music provide analysis, evaluation and commentary on the festival controversy. Agent Squash (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the meaning of "Independent Content" above (from WP:ORGIND) at the start of my !vote. The relevant sections of GNG/NCORP have been pointed out, but it appears you are unwilling to accept those guidelines. If you wish to convince other editors that those articles meet the relevant criteria, then take on board that ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and next you need to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition. I've already done that, hence my analysis shows they don't. There is zero "Independent Content" in those articles which would then go on to satisfy CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unwilling to accept the guidelines, and would like to think I have shown good faith in trying to improve the article and engage with policy through the AfD process. However, your analysis was simply labelling sources as 'advertorial' despite having no evidence to justify that claim, and ignoring the evidence I have provided in previous responses. For example, the news.com.au article compares the funding model of Trybooking to Eventbrite, a major competitor. You have asked for in your separate comment stating that keep votes need to justify the sources - whereas, as per WP:AFDFORMAT, the nominator (and other supporters of deletion) need to justify why it should be deleted. Dismissing major newspapers as advertorials without evidence while ignoring identified independent content (Eventbrite analysis, financial investigation, competitor criticism) appears to be the real obstacle here. Agent Squash (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An advertorial is "usually written to resemble an objective article and designed to ostensibly look like a legitimate and independent news story". This may not be strictly-speaking an advertorial because it isn't marked as one, but these days, that's a minor point. An article like this, which is essentially an interview sprinkled with some context here and there, is designed to celebrate/promote the company and their business. It has no independent content that can be verified to a source unaffiliated with the subject. You point to comments like "the bootstrapped company has managed to do with comparatively little what Silicon Valley tech giant Eventbrite has done with $176 million worth of venture capital funding" but where is the foundation for this? Without any further explanation or comparison it is relatively meaningless and especially when this company points to Eventbrite as their competition, making it almost a certainty that this "comment" is marketing spin. When you've read many of these advertorials you recognise that the content generally follows the same well-worn and tired pattern - background of founders, some struggles, AHA moment, description of business, differentiation, and future. All positive. Sometimes gushingly so. This also matches the format. You might think this is a wonderful article but it is really just marketing and the author has failed to add any independent content that is also in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've now acknowledged you have no evidence this is an advertorial, yet dismiss the Eventbrite comparison as "marketing spin". The marketing page you highlight first shows up on the Wayback Machine in 2022 - and, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, sources must be evaluated in their original context. The journalist provided an assessment of the funding models five years before the marketing page existed. WP:NEWSORG also establishes that organisations such as news.com.au have editorial oversight and are presumed reliable absent specific evidence to the contrary. Your assertion that any article mentioning founders backgrounds and business descriptions is an advertorial suggests a biased evaluation of the source. Independent content exists when journalists provide analysis and context beyond company statements - of which the news.com.au, SMH and The Music article all provide. Agent Squash (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An advertorial should be marked as such, which I've said, but if you'd prefer to discount the fact that this article exhibits all the hallmarks (except the label) then you're failing to grasp the meaning behind the label - that is, this article was written to resemble an objective article and designed to ostensibly look like a legitimate and independent news story - then I suppose there's not much more that can be said. Also this company has been positioning itself as an "alternative" to eventbrite since 2017, even to the point of placing "eventbrite-alternative" and "trybooking-vs-eventbrite" SEO tags in webpages since then. I've invited you previously to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition of in-depth independent content, still waiting. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of AfD, based on your use of CONTEXTMATTERS and NEWSORG which go to whether a source is reliable or not. There is a difference between a "reliable source" and a source which meets the criteria for establishing notability. Nobody here is arguing the source is not reliable. A journalist can faithfully regurgitate content from a company exec or source in a reputable publication (such as this article) and meets WP:RS but that doesn't mean it meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. So saying stuff like "significant mentions" are notable for the purposes of NCORP is incorrect - a "mention" by definition isn't in-depth independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have offered no evidence this is an advertorial other than it looks like one - this isn't in line with the wording or the application of the guidelines. Again, as mentioned previously, I have highlighted the significant sections of the articles which meet the criteria - including the comparison against competitors, which you haven't chosen to engage with. It is standard practice for businesses to have comparison pages and mentions - indeed, Eventbrite directly mention them on their Australian pages - the page you linked didn't exist in 2017, and the fact that it does doesn't have any baring on the article itself. In depth corporate articles are mentioned explicitly in WP:CORPDEPTH: 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.. As mentioned in the other chain, the sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notability criteria. Agent Squash (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some sources, such as source 1 and source 2, support the arguments for retaining the article in the deletion discussion. So, best of luck! Baqi:) (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baqi, the same request (to actually discuss the criteria) applies to yourself as well. Please actually explain why you think an interview (SMH, or source 2) meets WP:ORGIND, when on the face of it, it would typically not. As a new page reviewer, I have to assume you are capable of doing so, rather than just pointing at two sources without elaboration. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Moved response to Agent Squash to talk page, less directly relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alpha3031 - there must be some meaningful engagement around the content in those articles rather than bold assertions with no supporting argument. I'll repeat what I said above. I posted the meaning of "Independent Content" above (from WP:ORGIND) at the start of my !vote. If you wish to convince other editors that those articles meet the relevant criteria, then take on board that ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and next you need to isolate those specific parts/sections/paragraphs from those articles which meet the definition. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agent Squash points out there is a comparison to Eventbrite in the news.com.au article. This is, strictly speaking, correct, and it it indeed secondary analysis, but I'm not really convinced a couple of instances of things like
The couple invested “several million dollars” in the business, which sprang from an idea hatched when Ms Dunoon was struggling to organise an event for her kids’ basketball team.
While it sounds like a lot, the bootstrapped company has managed to do with comparatively little what Silicon Valley tech giant Eventbrite has done with $176 million worth of venture capital funding — albeit on a local scale — using proceeds from the sale of a previous business.
meets the NCORP criteria considered jointly. I will grant that the second sentence here is plausibly independent and also secondary, but the totality of such content in that source is not sufficient to give an overview of the company rather than a couple of dot points without context, which I will assert is the reason for our subsidiary points of ORGDEPTH. Searches in ProQuest and Gale, although returning many hits, similarly did not provide anything better for our use. I do not see the article meeting our inclusion criteria, even to the marginal range (that SIRS recommends we usually exclude) from the sources I have been able to review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 I appreciate your acknowledgement that independent content exists. However, I think we're missing the wood for the trees by examining individual sources in isolation when, collectively, they provide the "overview of the company rather than a couple of dot points". The article demonstrates sustained coverage across multiple newsworthy events spanning 14 years - the news.com.au feature covering from 2008-2016 including business model analysis, the coverage of controversy regarding the Maitreya festival including strong evidence from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Music, details about international expansion from The Australian and the trades sources about technology development. This isn't a couple of dot points, but documents a broad business history including both positive and negative coverage. What company PR would arrange coverage for a lawsuit?

Per WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources (and the article as a whole) provide overview, analysis (Eventbrite and Ticketek comparison), investigation into the festival scandal, and evaluation including competitor (Oztix) and regulatory criticism. This totality has allowed the creation of a comprehensive article that goes beyond a stub as required by WP:NCORP. Agent Squash (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each individual source used for notability must meet each of WP:SIRS, that is, all three of the multiple sources must meet ORGDEPTH (and the other criteria) jointly and severally, each on their own. I don't really think this is unclear in how the guideline was written? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:SIRS does make this quite clear. The sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant mentions from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notabilitiy criteria. The point of WP:ORGDEPTH is that the article should be more than a stub - and this article already gives an overview of the company rather than a couple of 'dot points'. Agent Squash (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that the sources only contain mentions. Significant *mentions* are (by definition) not in-depth. Nobody here is questioning the sources are WP:RS. The point of ORGDEPTH is that the *source* must contain deep or significant coverage - and that content must also be independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was a typo on my behalf - and it is disappointing that you are jumping at this. To correct my statement - The sources from news.com.au, The Australian, SMH and The Music are all significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, showing the article does in fact meet the notability criteria. Agent Squash (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

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

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Applied Intuition has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Move for speedy keep. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: It's all WP:CORPTRIV doing a Google for 'Applied Intuition {Reuters,Bloomberg,TechCrunch}'. If you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith, here are some! [50][51] (Reuters), [52][53] (Bloomberg), [54][55][56][57](TechCrunch). All of these articles are not just trivial mentions of Applied Intuition but are completely centered around them and their business activities. I could continue naming more satisfactory sources if you wish. I'm not sure if you were searching for the right things when you did, because all of these articles were easy to find. Again, I suggest that the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redstar0005: All of those are WP:CORPTRIV... 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices ... of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital'. So again, if you have anything that's not trivial reporting, please provide it... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rich Smith. The articles from Reuters, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch provide non-trivial coverage by focusing specifically on Applied Intuition’s funding, valuation, business model, and industry role, not just standard notices or brief announcements. They include independent analysis and sustained attention, meeting WP:GNG and exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Again, I suggest the article is kept. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The routine coverage standard is usually used to dismiss articles from PR firms that have close financial ties to the companies they report about. Reuters is not a PR firm, and they don't report about every fundraising event from every startup. The nominator has the implication backwards: routine coverage can come in the form of fundraising news, but not all fundraising news is routine coverage.

And independent of all this, This case study that already appears in the article can clearly be used to establish notability. I would need to see something more than a bare assertion that the sources in the article constitute "trivial reporting" in order to change my !vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every source is valuations and funding rounds - where is the ORGCRIT? qcne (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can't agree with assertions that every source is valuations and funding rounds; in fact most are not. After looking over the list of references it seems to me that about two-thirds of sources cover substantial business activities rather than financial reporting. For example: Harvard Business School case study on the company's business model, Bloomberg's analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation technology and industry challenges, coverage of strategic partnerships with major automakers like Isuzu, Axios coverage of military AI products, Breaking Defense analysis of acquisitions, and a recent CNBC piece discussing the company's AI technology and dual-use applications. These sources provide exactly the type of in-depth critical analysis and commentary from major newspapers, trusted academic institutions, and high-quality mainstream websites that establish notability. I think this article definitely should be kept. Soxfanruthian (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM text collapsed

Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are plenty of articles that establish notability such as TechCrunch, WSJ and more.Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment table would address the disagreement here about the quality of the sources provided in the article and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 9 July 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. Here's an analysis of sources (omitting primary sources or GHITS type references) with emphasis on those articles that others above claim to meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references based on funding and valuation are junk. Here's why. The $250m funding round with a $6b valuation are based on this Press Release dated March 12, 2024. Similarly, the series d media churn is all based on this PR from 2021. The latest series f is based on this. Notice that those references have the same date as the announcement (or later). Lets not be naive here - this is how marketing works. There is no original content in any of those articles. If some of the Keep !voters above disagree, lets discuss - post a link to one of the articles and point out the paragraphs containing original content.

-

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?
"Applied Intuition, whose software tests self-driving cars, grabs $40 million". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs as part of the PR around their series B round (same date, quotes, etc)	no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Inside one of Silicon Valley's most celebrated rituals: raising cash". Washington Post. 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		There no in-depth information about the company
"Qasar Younis and Peter Ludwig of Applied Intuition: A startup with design in mind". Greatness by Floodgate (Podcast). Retrieved 2025-07-11.	It is an interview and relies entirely on information from the founders
"2025 Tech Defense Startups to Watch". Bloomberg Features. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	A company profile based on summarising existing company information	Four sentences is insufficient for CORPDEPTH
"Transportation: Most Innovative Companies 2025". Fast Company. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		A mention-in-passing, single sentence
"Applied Intuition and military AI partnership". Axios. 2025-05-20. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	The article merely summarises a company announcement	Insufficient in-depth information about the company
Applied Intuition co-founder Qasar Younis on bringing AI to military vehicles. CNBC. 2025-05-30. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on an interview with the founder
"Driscoll suggests Army can take page from Silicon Valley business model". Inside Defense. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		A mention in passing that contains no in-depth information about the company
"How self-driving cars can get past the learning permit stage without any risk". Bloomberg. 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on a visit to the company's office and information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition neue Partnerschaft mit Audi". Automobilwoche. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
"Isuzu to develop self-driving trucks with U.S. startup". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	This also relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
"Volkswagen, TRATON, Applied Intuition software collaboration". Automotive News. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Software tools provider Applied Intuition buys company behind CarSim". Automotive News. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition acquires SceneBox platform to strengthen machine learning data operations". Autonomous Vehicle International. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition to buy autonomous trucking SPAC Embark for $71M". TechCrunch. 2023-05-25. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition takes flight, sets sail in acquiring EpiSci". Breaking Defense. February 2025. Retrieved 2025-07-11.	Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs	no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Pilot in a real aircraft just fought an AI-driven virtual enemy jet for the first time". TWZ. Retrieved 2025-07-11.		There is no in-depth information about the company

It is difficult to find articles on this very valuable company that meet NCORP right now. I've omitted the case study because I cannot locate a copy to read, but from experience, not all case studies hosted by HBS meet the criteria but if someone wants to link to a non-paywalled version I'll give it a read. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for feedback on the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by HighKing. Most of the WP:RS articles are WP:CORPTRIV. The ones that are not do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see lots of items in my searches about the concept of applied intuition, but nothing about this company. The source chart above pretty much sums up the current sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Keep I want to weigh in again, and start by acknowledging the effort and seriousness HighKing brings to these discussions—it’s clear there’s a lot of practical experience here with Wikipedia sourcing standards and notability policies. For my part, I haven’t been as active an editor as some, and much of my time on Wikipedia is spent reading fun topics like old movies. But I’ve spent some time reviewing this article and its sources because I believe rigor and fairness matter, especially in these deletion debates.

Why I Support Retention

Significant, Independent Coverage The article’s references aren’t just routine corporate bulletins or PR rewrites. Multiple leading sources—Bloomberg, VentureBeat, Automotive News Europe, Nikkei Asia, Axios, Breaking Defense, among others—have published coverage that delves into Applied Intuition’s technology, industry partnerships, and strategic direction.

For example, Bloomberg and VentureBeat detail step-by-step how Applied Intuition’s simulation software is changing the landscape for autonomous vehicles, clearly placing the company within a wider industry and technological context.
Nikkei Asia and Automotive News Europe devote attention to major deals with Isuzu and TRATON, not simply announcing them but explaining their significance to industry developments.

Academic and Strategic Analysis There is also an independent case study from Harvard Business School that examines Applied Intuition’s business model and challenges. While I don’t have access to the full text to quote directly—and recognize the case is paywalled—it is cited in the article as an example of the kind of in-depth, analytical, secondary coverage that Wikipedia generally treats as especially strong for establishing company notability. If others have access and can speak to its details, that would be helpful to the discussion.

Diverse Coverage The article is built on reporting that covers technical innovation, business achievements, partnerships, acquisitions, and defense sector relevance—not just finance or personnel movements. Nearly every source provides some independent analysis or market context.

Wikipedia Policy Alignment Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:CORP, WP:GNG) require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources—not a critical exposé or “deep dive” investigation for every company. Secondary analysis, market context, and substantive reporting over multiple years fit the bill, and that standard is met here.

I appreciate HighKing’s careful review and skepticism about routine or recycled press coverage, which helps keep the bar high for Wikipedia quality. My reading of both policy and these sources, though, leads me—and several others—to a different conclusion: substantial, in-depth, and independent coverage absolutely exists in this case.

Bottom line: From my perspective (acknowledging that I bring an outsider’s eye and am not a notability purist), Applied Intuition’s article meets the standards set out in Wikipedia policy, with more significant sourcing and secondary analysis than many company or tech articles. At the end of the day, we may weigh aspects of depth or independence differently, but I hope it’s clear this is an earnest disagreement, not an attempt to lower the bar.

I support keeping the article and appreciate everyone’s thoughtful input on both sides. Soxfanruthian (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soxfanruthian we really don't consider AI chatbot generated walls-of-text. Please write in your own words, instead of feeding the machine. qcne (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Harvard Business School case study is a paid academic resource so there are limitations on how much can be posted but below are some points.

The case discusses how Applied Intuition developed a virtual testing platform that aimed to dramatically reduce the time and cost required to validate ADAS and AV systems, addressing a critical bottleneck in bringing autonomous vehicles to market. (pages 2, 7)

It also covers how the company stands against competition, explaining that unlike legacy tool vendors, Applied Intuition positioned itself as an end-to-end solution for OEMs, with a focus on flexibility and rapid iteration. The case describes the competitive landscape and mentions the company's rivalry with companies like Waymo, Cruise, Aurora, and Baidu's Apollo. (pages 8–10)

The study notes that as autonomous mobility continued to evolve, Applied Intuition's platform became a vital component for companies racing to deploy safe and reliable driverless technology on public roads. (page 6)

It also talks about challenges the company faces, such as scaling up and dealing with competition from established players like Waymo, Cruise, and Aurora, as well as shifts in regulation and technology. (page 7 et al.)

The case includes analysis of how Applied Intuition began moving beyond automotive into areas like robotics and defense. (page 6)

The above points are from the case study, dated February 12, 2024. Cal-batman (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Posting again because my earlier rationale was flagged and closed for being too AI-generated. Just to be transparent, I did use an AI tool as part of reviewing the sources and understanding them against Wikipedia’s notability standards, I’m still getting up to speed on that. What follows is my own assessment after reading the discussion and the references.

From what I can see, the sources aren’t just reworded press releases or short news blurbs, they represent significant coverage, by independent outlets. I see coverage by Bloomberg, CNBC, VentureBeat, Nikkei Asia, and others that takes the time to explain what Applied Intuition does and how their tech fits into the self-driving field. E.g., Bloomberg got into how the company’s simulation software is used in industry and why that’s significatn. Nikkei Asia and Automotive News Europe do the same but with a focus on partnerships with Isuzu and Traton.

There’s the Harvard Business School case study that analyzed the company’s business model and the challenges it faces. I don’t have the whole thing in front of me since it’s paywalled, but from the points called out by calbatman it seems like a solid independent academic analysis on Wikipedia. I think that source would be considered independent and notable.

I also think the reporting is not just about funding rounds. I read a lot of the coverage listed and, yes, it talks about funding, but it seems in the context of their technical developments, new partnerships, acquisitions, expansion into defense tech, etc. It’s a mix—not just finance or corporate speak.

I appreciate HighKing’s compiling the table, but I just come to a different conclusion. For me, the independent and in-depth sourcing is there, but I see how other people might see them differently.

That’s my two cents. Again, I say keep. Thanks. Soxfanruthian (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaison Hotels & Residences

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

Article created by WP:SPA. References provided do not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, as these are all directly from the company itself. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. C 679 10:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Czech Republic, and Hungary. C 679 10:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely promotional. Jdcooper (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The hotel brand Mamaison Hotels & Residences has received significant coverage through many reviews of its hotels.
1. Phillips, Adrian; Phillips, Monika (2025-06-18). "Mamaison Hotel Andrassy Budapest". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Few hotels can claim that they were designed by an Olympic champion; the Hotel Andrassy is one of them. Its Bauhaus building is the work of Alfréd Hajós, who won a pair of gold medals at the Athens Games in 1896 for swimming. The hotel itself is an intimate four star-plus boutique property on Andrássy út, just a stone's throw from City Park."
2. Phillips, Adrian; Phillips, Monika (2025-06-18). "Mamaison Residence Izabella Budapest". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Residence Izabella remains one of the city’s best aparthotels. It’s modern and welcoming, and has good facilities – including a comfortable lounge area and an excellent gym – and stands near the Unesco-listed Andrássy út. The ground floor also received a refurbishment in 2024, meaning it’s more spick and span than ever."
3. Sullivan, Paul (2017-10-01). "Mamaison All-Suites Spa Hotel Pokrovka Moscow". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "This modern, classy boutique enjoys a decent location in Moscow’s Basmanny district. The sumptuous suites have fully equipped kitchenettes, making them a good option for long-term stays, although there is also a good restaurant on-site, as well as a comprehensive spa area with a pool and hammam."
4. Lussiana, Mary (2019-09-01). "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  This is a former property of the hotel. It was listed on the website in 2017 but not in 2025. The review notes: "Unique among Warsaw’s best hotels for its location on the cobbled streets of the historical 'New Town', this 61-roomed hotel housed in an ancient palace brims with a sense of place. Its luxurious interiors include a swimming pool and the justifiably acclaimed La Rotisserie restaurant."
5. Waterson, Luke (2019-06-01). "Mamaison Residence Šulekova Bratislava". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Chirpy minimalist apartments spread across this rambling residence intertwined in the maze of leafy, hilly streets of the Slavín neighbourhood, close to Bratislava castle. With plenty of space and great city views, it gets the thumbs up as one of the city’s best aparthotels."
6. "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Not to be confused with the British Malmaison chain — MaMaison, no L, is an Eastern European phenomenon, specializing in converting historical buildings to high-end boutique hotels. The markets they’re in are under-served in that particular category, to put it mildly; there’s nothing else in Warsaw, for example, to match the sleek modernity and first-class luxury of the MaMaison Hotel Le Regina."
7. "Mamaison Residence Sulekova Bratislava". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Given the relative dearth of boutique hotels in this part of Europe, and in particular the tardiness with which international travelers have embraced Slovakia, it’s a bit surprising, honestly, to find that one of Bratislava’s first small contemporary design hotels is such a strong entry. But that’s exactly what the MaMaison Residence Sulekova is — thirty-two relatively spacious apartments (not rooms, apartments) in a bright and breezy modern style, located in a residential neighborhood right in the heart of old town Bratislava, walking distance from the Danube and the Bratislava Castle."
8. "Fodor's Expert Review: Mamaison Hotel Andrássy Budapest". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Budapest's best boutique hotel is housed in a Bauhaus-style structure built in 1937 and once used as an orphanage. Most rooms are large, but the only nod to actual design are the lighting fixtures."
9. Narizhnaya, Khristina. "Mamaison All-Suites Spa Hotel Pokrovka". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2021-12-08. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "The luxury spa hotel is the perfect choice for business travelers as well as those after a romantic weekend with lots of pampering. The two-level Algotherm spa and its wide range of treatments are the highlights here."
10. Banfalvi, Carolyn. "MaMaison Hotel Andrássy". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-12-13. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Under the Communists, this four-story, art-deco building from the 1930s was a drab hotel for visiting politicians from other Eastern Bloc countries. Now, it's an attractive upscale boutique hotel that makes for a great base. ... There's also a wonderful terrace that's open during the warm months. A sister property, MaMaison Residences Izabella, is nearby and has 38 self-catering apartments; since the Hotel Andrássy has no gym, guests can use the facilities there."
11. "Mamaison Residence Sulekova Bratislava". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-26. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Mamaison Residence Sulekova is situated in a quiet residential district of Bratislava. It offers stylish, air-conditioned apartments, free WiFi and castle views. Studios and apartments feature contemporary furniture and wooden floors. Fully-equipped kitchens come with a coffee maker and dining furniture."
12. "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw is a 5-star establishment that offers accommodations a quarter mile from Warsaw’s Old Town. Free Wi-Fi is available in the entire hotel. Mamaison Hotel Le Regina Warsaw is housed in a historic building. All rooms are elegantly furnished and include flat-screen satellite TVs."
13. "Mamaison Residence Diana". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The review notes: "This 4-star property is housed in a beautifully restored 19th-century building, only 220 yards from Warsaw's popular Nowy Świat Street. It offers luxurious suites with free internet and DVD player. Mamaison Residence Diana offers stylishly furnished rooms with a full kitchen area, a living room and a work space."
14. Kiesnoski, Kenneth (2008-07-08). "MaMaison brings homegrown luxury to New Europe". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29.
  The article notes: "A boutique hotel property is ideally a chic home away from home, and so, true to its name, MaMaison Hotels & Apartments hopes to bring homegrown know-how to operating high-end hideaways in Central and Eastern Europe. MaMaison is a division of Luxembourg-based real estate and hospitality developer Orco Property Group, focusing on "New Europe." ... MaMaison has taken pains to make its properties relevant to the cities they serve. In Warsaw, the Hotel Le Regina (see Room Key) is housed in a reconstructed 17th century palace in the Unesco-protected Old Town that once served as the U.S. Embassy. The Andrassy Hotel in Budapest, meanwhile, occupies a 1937 Bauhaus structure designed and built by Alfred Hajos, an architect and native of Hungary who also won two gold medals for swimming at the first modern Olympic Games in 1896."
15. "Hotel Check: MaMaison Andrássy Hotel, Budapest". Travel Weekly Australia. No. 107. 2009-03-13. p. 30. ISSN 1833-5179. EBSCOhost 43564273.
  The review notes: "Located on Andrássy Avenue, which is likened to Paris's Champs Ëlysées, this only-just fíve-star hotel has been recently refurbished, features 63 rooms and seven suites and is Hungary's only member of the Small Luxury Hotels of the World brand. It's location requires a short foray by public transport in order to reach the centre, or a 20 minute stroll past some wonderful sites. ... There are more romantic, authentic hotels in Budapest, which also offer a greater range of facilities. However, given the Andrássy's price point, its level of service and high degree of comfort in the room, it's a very good proposition."
16. Anderson, Robert (2004-03-05). "Orco builds on its Czech roots: Following its listing in 2000 and initial success in Prague, group plans rapid growth in central Europe with mid-market dwellings and new office projects". Financial Times. ProQuest 249526071.
  The article notes: "Typically Orco uses its extended stay hotel brand MaMaison Residences to grab its first foothold in new markets, before moving into office and residential development. ... In hotels, its Orco Hotel Collection boutique chain and MaMaison Residences operate in Budapest and Prague. This year an Orco Hotel Collection will open in Warsaw and MaMaisons in Bratislava and Bucharest. The group plans to expand the MaMaison idea to Moscow, Kiev, Belgrade and Sofia to follow foreign investors as they start to open up new markets in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development backed this concept last year by committing Euros 10m for a 35 per cent stake in MaMaison."
17. Oswald, Stephanie (2008-08-10). "Pokrovka treats biz travelers to luxury". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2025-06-29. Retrieved 2025-06-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "With just 84 rooms in all, The Pokrovka Hotel is a MaMaison boutique property that sits walking distance from Red Square, subway access and plenty of shopping; plus, anything else you desire is simply a concierge call away. Other impressive highlights of MaMaison's latest creation: Each level of the seven-floor Pokrovka features a fabulous, huge, black-and-white signature photo mural—follow closely and you'll see a storyline."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mamaison Hotels & Residences 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) 08:10, 29 June 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) 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ORCO or CPI Property Group: Cunard found many sources that include the word "Mamaison" but most of them are not talking about the organization itself. They talk about the buildings that predate the organization (sources: 1, 4, 8, 10) or they are short reviews of the hotel without commenting on the organization (2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17). This leaves us with #6 and #16 as the only two sources that are useful, and 16 already lends itself well to merging to Orco. Moritoriko (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument makes no sense to me. Mamaison is a chain of hotels and "residences". I would expect the article to discuss the hotel business. Sure, the corporate management structure is relevant but it seems very odd to say that only coverage about the corporate "organization" is relevant. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I based my original vote only on the excerpts that Cunard posted instead of looking into the sources in proper depth. And they are worse than I assumed the first time around. The first 5 are all from The Daily Telegraph so they count as one source. Two are from The Michelin Guide which are much better, but not what I would necessarily describe as in-depth. Next is Fodor's Expert reviews, the brand has a reliable pedigree but this is practically just a pros and cons list. I can't count this as a source for notability. Then we have 5 sources from Frommer's, another reliable guidebook company but author credit for 3 of them is listed as booking.com which leads me to think its not actually an independent source. The two credited authors are faceless and detail-less so harder to say.

On the other hand we have #16 which talks in detail about ORCO and mentions Mamaison as a part of it. #14 which I neglected to categorize before is actually the best source by far but it still talks about the brand as a part of ORCO. This is why I voted for a merge to ORCO, its definitely not a delete, just feels like a part that organization. Moritoriko (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the sourcing Cunard identified and whether it meets the requisite depth
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ORCO per Moritoriko. The sources listed above are mostly about the buildings, not the organization, see WP:ORG#Significant_coverage_of_the_company_itself. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but give a stern warning to all the single-purpose accounts making edits to the article to PLEASE STOP. Cunard has provided more than sufficient coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Now please allow other editors without a conflict of interest to fix the article. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:NOTADVERT and cutting and pasting text from other websites is generally not allowed per WP:COPYVIO. Please also read about conflicts of interest at WP:COI. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here I've blocked Cpihotelscz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and moved the article back to Mamaison Hotels & Residences. The article is semi'ed for one week to allow this discussion to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 13:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ORCO as per WP:ATD. Most of Cunard's sources provide almost no information about the actual company (as opposed to some of its assets like individual hotels) HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Cielquiparle and consider there to be enough coverage about the hotel business through reviews of the hotels to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. The sources show the Mamaison hotel brand is notable.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Local units of larger organizations says, "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." As the individual hotels may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article, the guideline recommends discussing them in an article about the parent organization. ORCO is a large real estate company with many holdings, so to avoid undue weight issues, it would be preferable to keep Mamaison Hotels & Residences as a standalone article discussing the hotels under the brand. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the individual hotels are not notable for Wikipedia articles at this point. I see your point about undue weight in the ORCO article as well. As there is some coverage (see 14 and 16 you found), I am not opposed to keeping. Moritoriko (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; I see no consensus right now, but further discussion and input from others may change that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwebantu

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are from blogs, press releases, or user-generated content, which do not establish encyclopedic notability. The tone is promotional and may reflect a conflict of interest. Without multiple independent in-depth sources, this article does not warrant a standalone entry. Icem4k (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly sources analyze this media source as a major news source for Zambia, for better or worse. See [58], [59]. The article is in dire need of cleanup but there are fortunately a lot of scholarly sources with which to write a balanced article. Probably the company's marketing team will not like the article that gets written though. Marked with cleanup tags; I may be able to help clean this once the AfD is over. FalconK (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One academic paper, no matter how well-researched, is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability per WP:GNG. There's no mainstream or sustained coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Mwebantu is not profiled by any major media outlets, has no significant awards, and no long-term impact demonstrated in third-party sources. Cleanup cannot substitute for notability.--THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cleanup and notability are orthogonal, but I suspect the desire to delete this article is in large part due to the absolute mess the article is. The sources discussing it, many of which are very critical of its coverage, are considerably more than one single academic paper. I found two after searching for less than 5 minutes. It is also treated in [60], and described in Matambo, E. (2025). Zambia's Youths and the 2021 General Election. I would agree it is marginal and the article would be both completely different from this one and much shorter, but unfortunately this site seems to be a reasonably major part of Zambia's media landscape. FalconK (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources provided in this discussion. When determining WP:GNG notability, one doesn't even need to look at the content of the article per WP:CONTN. Subject notability is independent of the article.

I will also throw in [61] and [62] for consideration. More sources also likely exist in other languages.

- Ike Lek (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I say delete cause Based on the sources presented in this discussion so far is, Mwebantu appears to have some coverage in scholarly and academics publications that analyze its role in Zambias media landscape. However, the question will always remains whether this coverage is sufficiently significant, independent, and reliable to meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for a stand alone article on wiki. That is why i say delete. --Chise95 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG Jdn2004 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to daft: This article covers a kind of notable Zambian online news platform, but it currently contains promotional language, lacks sufficient independent reliable secondary sources, and needs restructuring to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Moving it to Draft space will allow editors to improve sourcing, tone, and format without the risk of deletion cause while Mwebantu may be recognized locally as a Zambian online news platform, the article currently fails to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline). Most of the cited sources are either not independent or lack significant in-depth coverage about the subject. Without reliable secondary sources that establish its broader impact or recognition, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards in its current form. It may be better suited for user Draft space until further improvements can be made or just delete it.

ZedKuChalo (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and per ZedKuChalo

GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have noticed some cleanup on the article, but the links in the references do not correspond to the claims they are supposed to support. In most of them, the sources either do not mention the subject at all or discuss entirely different topics. This raises concerns about the reliability and relevance of the citations.Icem4k (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis by an experienced editor will be of great help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been updated but references provided do not offer significant, independent coverage of Mwebantu as a subject. Instead, they are primarily mentions (such as photo credits or articles authored by the agency) and fail to establish the organization’s notability. There is no evidence of sustained, in-depth reporting by reliable secondary sources about the company’s history, impact, or operations. Without substantial coverage in independent, reputable publications, the topic does not demonstrate the level of encyclopedic significance required for inclusion. --Icem4k (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

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

Article had only two citations, both of which were unreliable sources per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Only reason I didn't remove the second citation was because I didn't spot it. So in essence, this list article, which contains details such as numbers of aircraft in operation or formerly in operation, is completely unsourced, with the only assistance for the reader being to go to the linked articles - which doesn't count as sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you also have Airfleets [63], and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: [64] [65] So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

And for the record, yes I did make a quick search for sources myself... but as I'm not really an aviation-inclined person, I couldn't find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three books directly on the planes published at various times, but I can't access their insides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're wanting to source current lists of operators and numbers though we probably need more recent sources Danners430 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very few operators still fly this plane. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Flying is NOT a reliable source WP:SIMPLEFLYING Protoeus (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement (i.e. reliable references) is never a reason to delete an article. Fully referencing the list is something that should be achievable. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes opening an AfD is the only way to get an article improved... Like I said above, I've done a search for sources, but haven't been able to find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We can clearly source American operators from my source search. See [66] [67] We can also source other carriers - I picked two at random and there's lots out there, but nothing that is a clear "slam dunk" (like say the BBC) because this is a niche topic with niche sources. I do not know what is in this book. This looks self-published unfortunately. The problem is we can absolutely source this and it's encyclopedic but there's not going to be one source out there that isn't a niche aviation source... SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; more input on SportingFlyer's most recently-presented sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Absolutely needs better sourcing, but I think there's enough here to establish notability. Worth mentioning that there's a similar list for almost every major commercial aircraft, with sourcing of varying quality...if we get rid of this one then the rest need to be brough to AfD. nf utvol (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies proposed deletions

[1] Click on link to see mentions in reliability lists

[A]