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

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Expertise

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 16 years. Lacking third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurance Academy

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

I don't see any sources by which to judge the school to be notable, with WP:NCORP being applicable to this private business institution. The sole reference in the article seems to be lost, but based on its title ("NIA: 100% placement with highest package of Rs 10.5 lakh per annum") and what had been referenced to it, it seems to have been a PR-push. (I don't think independent media are going out on their own to examine insurance academy placement rates and report on them.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and India. Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boom and bust

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

Better handled by Business cycle and curiously focussed on the mining industry. Also no sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Business cycle. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I just wanted to get something started that was not subsumed in Business Cycle but specifically addressed the phenomenon of boom and bust. The business cycle page/s is so big, and complicated, it is difficult to engage with. I have copied and pasted the existing article on boom and bust from 2015 that is excellent, succinct and has plenty of references and examples from other industries. Hukapapa (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Business cycle, possibly a section thereof. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmere.com

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Only 1 article links to this. The coverage is routine and some of the listed sources are dead. Despite existing for 16 years, the company only gets 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Maryland. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources in the article are either routine or social media pages which do not contribute to notability at all, in addition to no sources on Google. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing much significant coverage and agree with nominator.Hkkingg (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Regarding significant coverage and source quality:

The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:

ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.

Regarding primary sources and interviews:

Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."

Additional supporting coverage:

Additionally, a recent article in Men's Health Australia (October 2024) offers a profile on Costas's media leadership and innovation strategies, providing another layer of significant coverage from a reputable publication (https://menshealth.com.au/damien-costas-on-fostering-creativity-and-innovation-in-the-media-industry)

Meeting notability requirements:

Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"

I'm happy to improve the article if needed, but the topic plainly meets notability standards under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Damien Costas article to include additional citations from independent and credible publications, strengthening its compliance with Wikipedia's sources policy. Below is a list of the new references added to the current version:

• WAtoday: Includes detailed reporting on Costas’s organization of Nigel Farage’s 2022 Australian tour, strengthening notability by documenting his significant role in high-profile political events.

• The Guardian: Covers Costas’s involvement in the emerging market for rightwing speaking tours, with his own insights, bolstering notability through in-depth, independent analysis of his cultural and political impact.

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Provides substantive coverage of Costas’s 2025 book, What Happened to the Lucky Country?, reinforcing notability by highlighting his authorship and influence in cultural commentary.

Australian Financial Review: Details Costas’s bankruptcy and financial history with independent reporting, enhancing notability by offering credible coverage of his business and personal challenges.

• Men’s Health Magazine Australia: Profiles Costas’s innovative media leadership and risk-taking approach, supporting notability with independent recognition of his sustained impact in the media industry.

These additions enhance the article’s alignment with Wikipedia’s policies:

• WP:RS: These publications—WAtoday, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, and Men’s Health Magazine Australia—are reputable, editorially controlled, and independent of the subject, meeting Wikipedia’s standards for reliable secondary sources.

• WP:GNG: The added sources provide significant, sustained coverage of Damien Costas across business, media, and cultural domains, directly addressing his activities in detail and reinforcing notability through multiple credible, independent outlets.

• Verifiability: These independent publications bolster the article’s verifiability, supporting claims about Costas’s work with high-quality sources, reducing reliance on less robust material. CharlotteMilic (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Men's Health article, at the bottom of the article is written "Switzer Media newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content". This looks like paid advertising.

The test for WP:GNG is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources which are independent from the subject. The only reference you've provided that contains significant coverage in a reliable secondary sources, which is independent from the subject, is The Sydney Morning Herald. That's not enough. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TarnishedPath - I take your point re the Men's Health article, though this could mean the story was sourced from a freelancer etc. But still, it could be paid advertising so I will remove it.

Re other secondary sources, Costas was mentioned several times in the cited articles from the Australian Financial Review, Crikey, ABC News, the Guardian etc. All of these are significant coverage of Costas' activities, and all are independent news sources. CharlotteMilic (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ongoing discussion. I’ve removed the Men’s Health source to avoid doubt.

That aside, coverage in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, Crikey, WAtoday, and The Guardian all substantively discuss Costas’s professional and cultural activities. Crikey and AFR provide more than trivial mention; The Guardian and WAtoday contextualize his public influence.

Taken together, these meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO — no original research is needed to verify content, and sources are both independent and editorially reliable.

I’m open to further article improvement, but deletion isn’t policy-justified. Recommend Keep. CharlotteMilic (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding me. My comments above are not in relation to whether certain references are usable in the article. The question is whether they count towards establishing notability. Only the SMH article goes towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, refer to WP:IBTIMES for the reliablity of International Business Times. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's been an attempt by the creator of the article to WP:CANVASS other editors here. Refer to Special:Diff/1293200899, Special:Diff/1293200817, Special:Diff/1293200761, Special:Diff/1293200688, Special:Diff/1293200547 and Special:Diff/1293200433. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's the editor of a non-notable journal, a co-founder of a non-notable company, and the author of a non-notable book. What's he supposed to be notable for? Maproom (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not particularly keen to see this article kept either, but there's a fair bit of coverage out there. His bankruptcy and various other legal issues have been covered in The Age, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review [1], Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times. There's also this 2014 article in The Australian, although it's fairly heavy on quotes. And he was recently covered in the Fairfax papers due to his new book. I think there's probably enough there to satisfy GNG, but the article is a disaster (particularly the section on his bankruptcy) and I'm open to the possibility that WP:TNT is in order. MCE89 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. Although they have a considerably large social media following, it does not contribute to notability. No secondary coverage found that would satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a decent amount of the coverage that was there in 2016 - including some of the sources I used in the article itself - have disappeared in the last decade. It's a shame I can't see the Austin.com article anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the jewelry company may be notable, I will try to search for additional sources.--Amlikdi (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Fortenbury, Jon (19 September 2014). "Austin Company Bravelets: Helping Families In Need, One Piece Of Jewelry At A Time". Austin.com.	This is an infomercial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
Daniels, Diane (3 March 2014). "How Does She Do It: An Interview with Stephanie Hansen, Founder of Bravelets". an everyday occasion.	This is an interview with the founder and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
N/a (2 May 2014). "Bravelets: Meaningful Jewelry Making a Big Impact". Colon Cancer Alliance Blog.	It is a blog, so fails WP:RS. Also it is an interview with the founder and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content

Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references are either primary sources or rely entirely on interviews with the founder. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's source analysis. The sources used in the article are primarily primary sources or articles that do not discuss the subject significantly. And so there is only one source to use but it is not enough. And there are no sources online that could be added to the article although more sources which are found are always welcome. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]