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

CouponBirds

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "businessing" looks like a vanity 'interview' site which advertised paid placement and guest/sponsored posting. 'dailymail' is a depreciated source and the other remaining media sources are simply noting survey results and other content marketing from the company. A large amount of SEO/PR and other paid placement was removed from the article before it was moved to articlespace by the declared paid creator. I was not able to find any reliable sources specific to the company in a search. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are not substantial (App Store, Microsoft Edge Addons, Chrome Web Store, LSU Financial Aid, "Favorite Chrome extensions"), are not more than trivial mentions (The Guardian, CBS News), are not independent of the company (Businessing Magazine), or are published by unreliable or questionable sources (International Scholarships Search, Mail Online, Newsweek). I did some searching but did not find much - this company's reports are cited often, but only by articles that list the "top 50 CostCo snacks", etc. Not in-depth coverage. -- Recon rabbit 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO, promotional article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another failed paid editing attempt by someone who does not understand WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Uwaibi

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

Fails WP:BIO. WP:ROTM business person. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Business, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, nothing notable here. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are definitely WP:ROTM. I see someone who could be notable if they have SIGCOV sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Odee Company

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was written by Buzz Tatom who worked for the company and admitted to it in the AfD back in 2005. And it does not appear to be any major coverage about the company since despite being made in 1923. GamerPro64 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Texas. GamerPro64 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJW Hotels & Resorts

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Aona1212, who requested deletion at WT:AfD and the article talk page due to it being unsourced and promotional. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Travel and tourism. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not sourced.Aona1212 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is true that there are no independent reliable sources applied to this page. It's likely worse than that; the page (and the Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber bio associated) appear to have been created and farmed almost entirely by undisclosed paid editors. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mentions and routine announcements is all I can find in a quick search. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mohamed bin Issa Al Jaber (with the history preserved under the redirect), per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Atul is a noted company of India founded in 1947 , listed both on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange [1] with Stock Price of Rs 6773/-, Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating and read WP:DEL before nominating articles for deletion Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that listed companies on major stock exchanges are not immediately presumed notable and still require sources to demonstrate notability (see WP:LISTED), but I would be very surprised if this one is not notable. The problem is that when I try to search for sources, the results are clogged by a huge amount of routine discussion of this company's stock price. Might count as an indicator of notability, though. Toadspike [Talk] 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company passes both WP:CORP and WP:GNG , so the nominator rationale for deletion does not hold here. He says no significant independent coverage in reliable sources which is not true. 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
independent sources is still required per WP:CORP and WP:GNG, I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and found primarily routine financial reports like stock price updates, which do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH for significant coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to add that WP:CORPDEPTH argument does not hold here, there are substantial coverage in books and news media about Atul Limited. It is not a small a medium sized company , it is a large multi specialty chemicals manufacturing conglomerate which has spread its wings across the globe in these 8 decades. Also there is nothing promotional in the article, everything mentioned is a fact. The Lalbhai group are one of the most low-profile people, who hold highest esteem for their integrity, never involved in any controversy and known for their phinlantrohic activities also never seeking media attention and limelight. I have added many citations and expanded the article in last few days. Although I had removed promotional tag, it was added back without mentioning which part of article is promotion. It's current market cap is 19,995 crores, which is 199950 Millions. Jethwarp (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains substantial coverage, as I can observe. This is unequivocally a Keep. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on mentioned references in the article which is generally a reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Gabriel (actress)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion. Mickfir (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mickfir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check! WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources like ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the claims made by @S-Aura about incorrect sourcing were false - made without even checking them first. The IMDb references have been removed as per the advice @Doclys Mickfir (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss_Universe_Philippines_2024. Not seeing her being notable. She did not win the pageant and her acting career does not look like enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have another skim reader. Shame the wiki community is so full of them. May I respectfully remind the administrator assessing this that this very nomination for deletion was made under false pretenses of nonexistent social media and self published citations. There are none.
Multiple independent sources outline over a dozen TV series episodes Stacey participated in with national distribution, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant. This, in addition to a nationally recognized prison ministry program.

Mickfir (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: the comments justifying the original nomination for deletion by @S-Aura contain false claims about the citations of the article. Not only does this invalidate the original AfD nomination but the community members that utilize false claims should be cautioned by admins.

Summary:

Claim: "Most references appear to be ... social media, or self-published material,"

Reality: there were never any such citations. All citations are from nationally, and in some cases internationally distributed news organizations.

This AfD discussion was raised under false pretenses and should therefor be retracted. AfD nominations should not be justified by outright falsehoods. Mickfir (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, No personal attacks WP:NPA.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting that you justified this AfD by making false claims is not a personal attack. Your claims are either correct or false. There is nothing personal. Just accountability. May I ask why you chose to include false information in your AfD nomination? Is not the Wikipedia Community dependent on telling the truth? Wikipedia:Don't lie

Or can you list which citation was from "social media" or "self published"?

There was clearly no such faulty citations. Mickfir (talk) 13:04, 17 May 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]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

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

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [2][3][4][5][6][7] (Primary, non independent source), [8][9][10][11][12][13]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AnonymousScholar49 is correct, that there exist some good sources that someone could add to the article, e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Insurance Journal are legit. As for this being a non-profit, I don't know about that. It is described as "a U.S. insurance rating and data collection bureau specializing in workers' compensation. Operating with a not-for-profit philosophy and owned by its member insurers...". I'm not sure why this is important but merely responding to Anon.--FeralOink (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Lee Flores

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much can be written about the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available information is his role for taking over the Kamuning Bakery. No information on the works that made him awarded the Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

See article's state (diff) prior to significant addition by a conflict of interest user Pandesalforum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For accountability, my last name is Flores, but I am not related to him. That said, I believe there is information out there about how he became an award-winning writer. I've also added info and sources on how he got 3 Palanca Awards.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author is covered by multiple reliable, independent sources, although I am assuming good faith about national publications that I have not read. The awards are verified and establish clear notability per WP:GNG. Archrogue (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Archrogue.
124.104.160.21 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innova Champion Discs

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

Article on a disc golf equipment manufacturer entirely reliant on primary or non-independent sources that doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. While they do appear on the surface to be a fairly major supplier of equipment, a search did not reveal any additional sources that would lend notability, with all results limited to either press releases, the organization's corporate website, or listings in shopping sites. The single book referenced in the article only contains passing mentions of the company. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, and California. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is an excellent example of counterproductive deletionism. Innova is undoubtedly one of the most prominent companies in the sport of disc golf, with numerous references available to support this assertion. You are welcome to mark the article as lacking references, but a deletion request is unwarranted. Iketsi (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to support your claims, please provide the references. My WP:BEFORE review didn't turn up anything that would contribute to notability; if it's as prominent and important as you say it is, then I should have been able to find more than press releases, photo credits in a book, and listings on sporting goods sites. nf utvol (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue is that disc golf is mostly "grassroots" so it doesn't get the coverage most professional sports do. Innova doesn't pay for TV or other advertising. The oldest and most popular magazine "Disc Golfer" was sent to PDGA members free but is now behind a membership paywall.

https://discstore.com/collections/innova

https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/search/?q=innova

Here's one of the more popular disc golf news sites: https://ultiworld.com/tag/innova/

Innova is the primary sponsor of the US Disc Golf Championship (USDGC) every year in North Carolina, USA: https://usdgc.com/tournament-sponsors/

One of the most populated Facebook groups regarding disc golf: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1031850190282331/search/?q=innova

Innova sponsored the only 12time world champion in the sport: Ken Climo Autobahnsho (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paid sponsorships and populated Facebook groups do not contribute to notability in any way. I can't believe we're having a discussion here where you're trying to use Reddit and Facebook posts to establish notability... nf utvol (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but add those missing sources, agree with above comments. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What missing sources? The individual claiming sources didn't provide any references at all. Best I can tell is that there are none. nf utvol (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick web search shows Innova is one of the top manufacturers of equipment for disc golf (if not the top). It sponsors professionals, events and hundreds of tournaments.[14] [15] [16] [17]. Google books shows lots of hits. I found a mention in a scholarly paper [18]. Another mention in an American Press article [19]. Another article: [20]. Other links to tournaments sponsored by Innova in local news sites: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so a lot to unpack here. Going to just go by your numbering...

1: Paid sponsorships do not contribute to notability (source is not independent).

2: A single paragraph review in a list of products in Wired is not enough to establish notability (source may or may not be independent and reliable).

3: Another paid sponsorship that cannot be used to establish notability (source is not independent).

4: Relies on corporate press releases, and doesn't provide significant coverage of the subject anyway.

5: A passing mention in a paper that it is not the subject of is not enough to provide significant coverage.

6: A passing mention in a news article is not enough to provide significant coverage.

7: Behind a paywall, but from what I can tell it would likely only be a passing mention and not enough to provide significant coverage.

8-12: Paid sponsorships do not contribute to notability.

None of these links meet the mark for contributing to notability for either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. nf utvol (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Players were also categorized by whether they were sponsored by one of three major equipment makers. Innova, Discraft, and Prodigy were identified as the "big three," because they sponsored more players in the sample than other companies." [26]

I didn't found good RS, but I think that's enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, you didn't find good RS. A bunch of non-SIGCOV in non-RS does not establish notability. Please take a minute to review WP:RS and WP:NORG. nf utvol (talk) 23:56, 11 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 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's clear that Innova is a major player in disc golf, but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources to justify keeping the page. Even the sources provided by @Itzcuauhtli11 were admitted to being unreliable despite the vote for keep as also noted by @Nfutvol.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find reliable, independent and secondary sources providing significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Short mentions are not enough. I agree with Nfutvol. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]