Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. 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|Business|~~~~}} 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 Business. 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 September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

Ziad El Chaar

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

Complete vanity spam about a non notable business person, being pushed by an obvious paid editor. Just a run of the mill executive. BUNNYDICAE🐇 18:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Blomberg article appears to be a non-primary source [1], rest are PR items or interviews. None of the sources in the article are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's

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

COI editing which was first deleted through a prod, then through AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine, although the article was restored through DRV, due to some behavioral issues. However, Oaktree b's analysis of the sourcing holds true. Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the main concern is a lack of WP:RS, which I disagree with. The magazine has been covered multiple times in big newspapers like the Sacramento Bee and Sacramento Business Journal, indicated by source 2 and source 7. It's also been covered by smaller papers like the Elko Daily Free Press (source 14) and The Placer Herald (source 12). But because this is Wikipage on a magazine, we should consider WP:NMEDIA for help determining notability. In the sub-section for "Newspapers, magazines and journals," Comstock's meets the first, second, third and fifth criteria. It has won awards (sources 26 and 27), it has a significant history (source 30), it is considered a reliable source as it's articles have been used as citations on about 30 different Wikipages, and it covers a non-trivial niche market, which is the Sacramento metropolitan area (source 1). Comstock's is a member of the California News Publishers Association (source 4), which is criteria 4 of WP:NEWSNOTE. While Comstock's isn't a newspaper, it's unique for a magazine to be a member of a state-wide journalism organization, so that point should count towards notability. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm still struggling to find anything outside the Sacramento Business Journal, we have multiple articles from it. Some coverage in the Sacramento Bee and Fresno and Elko newspapers. I guess we have enough to confirm notability; very local/focused coverage, but it extends over many years and a semi-large geographic area. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very !weak keep, I could go either way. If we found better sources, could be a !keep, but I can't find any. Gnews goes for about 30 pages of articles from the magazine itself, then dies off. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The California Digital Newspapers collection links a number of stories from the Roseville Press-Tribune and other local papers. Thus far none of them seem massively important, but the number of mentions indicates a level of significance to the region. Many of the articles discuss Comstock's role as a sponsor of local awards. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024 a feature radio interview with Comstock about the magazine's 35 year anniversary [2] , and Bite Sized Finance podcast episode on same topic.

Sacramento Public Radio marked 20th anniversary with an interview (24 minutes in).

Listed in a number of press and business publication directories: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The public radio links help, keep for sure now. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no evidence of lingering COI issues in the text. Key points such as circulation are sourced to several different independent sources, and a number of media organizations have covered anniversaries and the magazine's role in the community. Sourcing is good. I do think the article could benefit from some trimming, e.g. there is more attention given to the publisher's origin story, the vision that came to her in a dream, etc., than seems appropriate to a Wikipedia article. But that's not a matter for AfD. I see no issues that would warrant deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Sac Bee and Sac Business Journal, multiple items of coverage count as one source each... but that's still solidly two Independent RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Oaktree b's reasoning. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (online retailer)

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

I redirected this to the article about the older company[9], but was reverted. Nothing more needs to be said than what is already present at the target Comet (retailer)#Comet (online retailer), no separate article is warranted. Fram (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above, this is a textbook WP:BADFORK. Orange sticker (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BADFORK especially as the two businesses are in the same sector and use the same branding. Other similar situations use a single article, for example Borders (retailer) includes the current UAE franchise. On the other hand, Debenhams (online retailer) and Debenhams both exist as articles, but I can't see how a Comet (online retailer) article could develop much further, assuming it doesn't have a notable impact on its industry. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comet (retailer)#Comet (online retailer) as an ATD, Blatant WP:BADFORK, if it is recreated, lock the redirect. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the proposed target section has been renamed to Comet (retailer)#Comet.co.uk (2020–present). Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Gupta

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

Completely promotional article, paid contribs and the company he founded doesn't even have it's own article so there's no use having his. If some one searches his company's name this article doesn't pop up. The article has total 1500 views and is a stub from 10 yrs ago _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and Business. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my observation, the article is not at all promotional and adheres to WP:NPOV. The article also has multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:BIO. The absence of an article of the company he established is not a reason to delete this page. Same goes with the pageviews and class of the article. Warriorglance(talk to me) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three sources are generic profiles and don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject, and the final one just links to the most recent issue of Hindustan Times. All sources I could find online are, if anything, about Trident Group more than Gupta. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Padma Shri award seems notable. There is a limited amount of sourcing that confirms the win. [10] is typical of more recent coverage tha feels promotional. Also come coverage about the cricket association [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ingelec

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

Non-notable electrical equipment company which appears to be using phony sources. No evidence of meeting WP:NCOMPANY. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Morocco. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I agree the sources I used in the beginning weren't the best. I changed all of them and put only notable, independant sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just want to clarify my stance, as I forgot to include this in my original comment above. Datamanager3000 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be notable, they need to be reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say reliable sources. Datamanager3000 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid ads. Tamsier (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest the notability criteria have been met and I'm not finding much else to consider. WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and a bit opaque but I'm not seeing anything there that this journal unambiguously fits for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add: the editor that worked on this page also worked on a number of other journals from the same publisher. Which seems a bit suspicious (of COI editing) given they didn't seem to do anything else in their editing history. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Nobody (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is listed in Clarivate and Scopus. According to the Journal Citation Reports, it has a ranking of 136 out of 304 in the category of Business and 177 out of 407 in the category of Management.[12] Hence, it is not an insignificant journal and can pass WP:GNG. Nanosci (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether Scopus is sufficient for notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the above (assuming that the numbers are correct); so there are more than 300 business journals and 400 management journals in the system. Are we saying all 300 business and 400 management journals are notable? Or the best 10%? Or some number? For me, I don't think anything outside of the top 25% of anything can be considered "the best" or "the most notable" in common language. JMWt (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There exist thousands of business journals, being one of the few hundred that gets indexed in WOS makes it likely notable. Nobody (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAMPOC/WAMPEX

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish the conference as a prominent part within the energy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Africa, and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WAMPOC/WAMPEX meets WP:EVENT and has received significant independent coverage from reputable sources. Find coverages here [13], [14] , [15] [16] Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep LLM'ed/boilerplate rationale without one original word from the nominator themselves. Nathannah • 📮 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Nathannah. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]