Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP: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

Google Giggles

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

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globus Bank

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

no reliable sources (NCORP), routine or affiliate sources only. Unicorbia (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CreditWise Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Founding, partnership and other routine media references with no reliable multiple significant sourcing Unicorbia (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project (San Francisco)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, suggesting it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xrimonciam Can you please outline what you did WP:BEFORE? And are you familiar with WP:DEL-CONTENT?

Also, how familiar are you with the political advocacy scene of the San Francisco Bay Area? I scrolled back through between 1,000 and 1,500 of your last edits and don't see any edits that are obviously about san francisco. While it's entirely possible I missed one or two because it was a quick skim, if that's the case, it would be only one or two edits related to san francisco - which is why I ask the question.

Thanks! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First three sources seem decent enough with significant coverage. I'd say that they were sufficient to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PopUp Bagels

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR and routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 19:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disagree with the assessment of the sources. I'm not sure how any source would cover a restaurant/bagel franchise, other than how it has done. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 1, 2, and 7 seem enough to clear WP:NCORP. Article is quite promotional, though, and needs a lot of cleanup to achieve a more NPOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are PR and advert or press-releases. There is no reference 7. Ref 6 is a funding round which fails WP:SIRS. The NY article is a clear interview with the CEO as PR. It fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND, as well. scope_creep^Talk

Comment The core of it is that your so used to seeing this crap paid-for journalism, that you think once it appears in NY Times then it somehow valid. Its not. It paid-for advert. The business is too new to be really notable with associated secondary sources. The fact the guy has paid $40k-$60k for the written up story/advert, which is 2021 rate (don't know what it is now) seems to be not worth thinking about. The Entrepreneur is exactly the same. A paid-for advert. scope_creep^Talk 14:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier VM

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

This looks more like a promotional write-up than a properly sourced article. None of the cited sources actually establish notability. The first reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature and not independent. The second doesn't really go into detail about the subject. The rest are either trivial mentions, SEO-driven, or just routine business updates. A thorough search brings up nothing substantial just the usual PR and business announcements. Junbeesh (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Junbeesh (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Atelier VM is an Italian jewelry brand founded in 1998 with continuous activity for over 25 years. It has received coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

The article has been improved with additional context and sources during the AfD discussion. The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:CORP for notability, with reliable third-party coverage and relevance in the contemporary fashion and design scene. --Kaffa23 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaffa23 Looking at the sources, the first reference is just a listicle or a curated roundup of fashion updates. Listicles are usually brief and surface-level, so they don't really contribute to notability. The second reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature, meaning it's not independent. The third is just a basic product launch announcement, and the fourth is another article covering the same launch. There's nothing here that establishes notability in a meaningful way. Junbeesh (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Communications (publisher)

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

fails GNG TzarN64 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it fail GNG? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Market Adventures

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filevine

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

Promotional article for a non-notable private company. The sources are limited to: the organization's own website and press releases; sponsored content; trivial mentions; or WP:ORGTRIV like capital raises. Nothing else found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Utah. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of independent coverage. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group

Electroimpact

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

Does not have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is some local press from the Everett Herald but nothing that appears worthy of notice outside of the Seattle area with the exception of limited press about a civil rights settlement. I started a WP:HEY but don't want to continue based on notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, United States of America, and Washington. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems only of local interest. Really more of an article on the non-notable founder than on the company. Finding no non-local coverage at all on products or business of the company. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Electroimpact has received significant coverage in the Seattle times, a good portion of it before the racism from the CEO. They are a major supplier for Boeing, which has been noted in news sources. Not sure if there are specific guidelines on size of area to be considered notable, but the greater Seattle area is plenty large with about 4 million people in it. Even if it's just that area that's interest, >1% of the US population is still quite a few people. I do think the article could be improved with sources about more than the CEO being racist.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote. Hoping to get some clarification on your reasoning for keep. I realize it can be difficult for experienced users to navigate WP:NCORP, let alone someone new to editing such pages. There is no guideline about size of area. It doesn't matter how many people there are in Seattle. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless on the size of the city. That being said, the sources are still mainly local. We can sometimes use regional sources but there aren't any here that come close to WP:ORGCRIT that are outside of the area. You also state that it can be improved by using other sources. If you can provide those sources I would be happy to take a look as the page would need extensive cleanup for NPOV should it be kept. Regarding the comment about the CEO, be careful about naming someone. There is a lot that can be deduced about the subject from the sources, but it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to label that person as such unless it is widely published in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources about what the company does, here are several. I don't have time to write much right now, but I'll try to update the article when I have the chance. These are still mainly Seattle Times articles, but I believe they meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NCORP. The coverage of anti-Muslim discrimination is also, unfortunately, notable given its in-depth coverage in the Seattle times + its less detailed coverage nationally.

I do think that we should be leaning toward WP:PRESERVE for this article, hence my vote for keep, given the sources available about company culture and the company's importance in airplane manufacture in particular. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Storage Personal Computing

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

Non-notable IBM service. Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any sources about it expect one small 40-year old German article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources which meet WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was definitely not a niche service when it was offered (I used it around 1980), although it was subsequently quickly made obsolete by the Personal Computer. I was about fifteen years old at that time, so most of the users of VSPC will be retired or dead by now, and hence do not bother to digitize old documentation that they may still have. For a service more than 40 years old, the lack of information available online should not be a killer criterion. The documentation consisted of nice papercover books in A4 format, IIRC, and should still be available from national libraries. VSPC is history worth remembering. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu Golden Apple Child Education

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

I can't find any information about this company. The only company with a similar name I found was not founded in 1985. I'm not sure if it exists, and there are no references to this entry. Babaibiaobin (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company exists (website, Baidu Baike), but doesn't seem notable enough to have any in-depth news coverage – I only found a brief mention in this Fortune article. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lhoist group

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content is too short to provide notability Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised a company this large and old (established 1889) has so little coverage other than routine listings. I would change my opinion if more coverage could be found. Maybe someone with better access to offline print media archives could find something? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Pharma

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

I recommend the deletion of the MIdas Pharma page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the pharmacy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikhani Group of Companies

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are not reliable and independent. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Pakistan, and United States of America. GrabUp - Talk 08:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed content from prior to semi-protection.

What do u mean they arent reliable there are so many reliabe sources in it. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article shouldn't be deleted because the company and owner both are notable. WP:N Zaidtessori (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is does not make any sense. There are sources listed above and the page had sources and add on's that it seems others are deleting. does being a buissnessman & constable in the us not make a person notable. wow 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has many reliable sources in it. i have seen wikipedia articles with less than 4 unreliable sources and you guys didnt delete them. this article is about a company owned by a notable person named ali sheikhani. Ahmadalir (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is notable & falls under the criteria of notability WP:N Davidmathew11123 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources look notable to me. sources like news channels are notable like these https://katychristianmagazine.com/2023/12/06/meet-police-officer-and-self-made-businessman-ali-sheikhani-republican-candidate-for-fort-bend-county-constable-pct-3/ https://uspto.report/TM/98158126/FTK20230830173009/ there are a lot more sources that are reliable and notable so this article shouldn't be deleted. Mrbeast221 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable and independent. Janghirbutt (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace: Brother instead can someone it to a draft so i will work on it and then submit it for afc draft. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article shouldn’t be deleted as it has some reliable sources instead it should get the tag of more citations needed. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F953:498E:34F9:B100 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a few Reliable Sources. Article can rely on those sources. shouldn’t get deleted instead get a tag about needing more citations. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:9:9C:6201:76B0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has reliable citations shouldn’t get deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:441:F5D2:FB86:14FC (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources look independent and reliable. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:856C:CC4D:E3C6:CFB9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article Falls under notability it shouldn’t be deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F4C7:2A79:AC6D:4C0A (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has independent and reliable sources . Falls under notability WP:NCORP 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best to improve it. i dont know what the decision would be but i will try my best thanks, 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: Ridiculous amount of ref-bombing of nearly all useless references - scrapers, junk sites, passing mentions. The very few that have even moderately indepth coverage are churnalism or from regional sources only. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions and press releases (churnalism) but none of them cover this group in detail beyond routine coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Inc.

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

Brand-new startup, spun off from Rivian Automotive just two days ago. All coverage is just about Rivian announcing the spinoff. No sign it meets WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Better off as a section in Rivian Automotive for now. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Junbeesh. Thus far the information available that I can find is simply an announcement of a spin off. For now, sources read like coverage of an event with little detailed information about Also, Inc which makes sense given there is little info beyond its focus on electric "micromobility". A (sub)section under Rivian would be enough for now.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, no WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wealth of significant and reliable information available. A simple Google search will reveal that. Cinaroot (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it cannot be a section of Rivian because its entirely a new company. It has its own website, mission and planned product launches Cinaroot (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The company does not yet have enough news coverage. References are all announcements, press releases, etc.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnotable and promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aisera

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Amigao (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found two sources which could meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, being these are the only two and there is very little coverage outside of those (only five pages on Google News and most are mentions and routine announcements), it is not going to be enough. If a company was seen as worthy of notice by the media, it would have more coverage over the eight years of its existence, especially with AI being heavily covered in the media over the last year. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, concurring with CNMall41. If you find more reliable sources, please let us know. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear sufficiently notable for an article. Most mentions in reliable sources are only covering it in the context of covering the AI boom at large. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I’ve updated the Aisera article with additional independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:NCORP. These include TechCrunch on $50M (2020) and $90M (2022) funding ([1], [2]), Business Insider on its AI solutions ([3]), Forbes on RPA innovation ([4]), VentureBeat on $40M funding (2021) and Microsoft AI integration (2023) ([5], [6]), and IDC MarketScape recognition (2023) ([7]). Additional analyst reports from Forrester (e.g., Wave: Chatbots for IT Operations, Q4 2022, [8]). This coverage spans 2020-2024, showing sustained attention beyond routine mentions, especially in AI and ITSM. Bob Mashouf (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are all of the typical unreliable startup hype pieces. Sort of surprised there isn't more coverage by series D but alas. Brandon (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not reliable (per RS requirements) and thus don't meet NCORP. Unicorbia (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the recent delete votes labeling the sources as unreliable or "startup hype pieces." The updated Aisera article cites independent, reliable sources per WP:RS, including TechCrunch on $50M (2020) and $90M (2022) funding ([9], [10]), Business Insider on its AI solutions ([11]), Forbes on RPA innovation ([12]), and VentureBeat on $40M funding (2021) and Microsoft AI integration (2023) ([13], [14]). These outlets have editorial oversight and provide significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV)—e.g., funding details, technology analysis, and partnerships—not mere hype. The IDC MarketScape (2023) ([15]) and Forrester Wave (Q4 2022) ([16]) are independent analyst reports, often accepted for notability reports in the AI space, reflecting industry recognition. Spanning 2020-2024, this coverage shows sustained attention beyond routine mentions. Could Brandon and Unicorbia clarify which sources fail WP:RS or lack depth, and why? I believe this meets WP:NCORP for retention. Bob Mashouf (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about VC rounds are "routine fundraising events" and fall under WP:CORPTRIV, TechCrunch publishes such article for essentially every raise in the Valley. The Forbes article is WP:FORBESCON. The IDC award is sourced to a press release and has no secondary coverage. Analyst reports are hardly independent given how they are produced and are not regularly used to establish notability on Wikipedia. How many of the companies in the Forrester report have articles? Brandon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the article has been updated with additional sources, concerns remain regarding whether they meet the criteria for establishing notability under WP:NCORP. Arguments have been made that the funding announcements from TechCrunch are routine (WP:CORPTRIV), the Forbes article may not meet WP:RS standards (WP:FORBESCON), and the IDC award is sourced to a press release. The reliance on analyst reports for establishing notability is also being questioned. Therefore, despite the company's existence and funding, the current sourcing does not convincingly demonstrate the significant coverage in independent and reliable sources required for a Wikipedia article.Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Thanks for the feedback; I’ll clarify based on the sources. The TechCrunch 2022 article ([17]) details Aisera’s $90M Series D, noting its AI platform “auto-resolves customer service, IT, sales, and operations problems,” not just funding totals, countering WP:CORPTRIV. The Forbes article ([18]) by a staff writer, not WP:FORBESCON, covers Aisera’s Conversational RPA vision. The IDC MarketScape ([19][20]) names Aisera a leader in conversational AI, showing industry recognition. Forrester’s Wave ([21]) ranks Aisera among top vendors—e.g., Drift has a page. VentureBeat ([22], [23]) provides tech and partnership coverage. Spanning 2020-2024, this meets WP:NCORP with independent, significant sources. Can critics specify which lack depth or reliability? Open to edits. Bob Mashouf (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC) - striked double vote - Hmr (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is overtly authored by Tom Taulli, a "former contributor" and has the Forbes contributor disclaimer at the top of the article. At this point I have to ask, are you affiliated with Aisera? Brandon (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bus

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Protobowl above. Lacks WP:SIGCOV XwycP3 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT in Google News, Google Search, or Google Books. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability criteria for reasons already mentioned. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which a Google search did not reveal. There's no clear evidence of a lasting impact on the industry. If reliable sources are found, the article could be improved; otherwise, deletion seems appropriate. PriyasVP (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Agree with lack of notability, based primarily on lack of evidence of sources beyond company website (which gives no indication of when it was designed). In theory, the article could see work with the right source content, but it has essentially remained in limbo for 20 years now. -SteveCof00 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RodBez

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

Fails WP:NCORP as the sources only provide trivial coverage, primarily comprising recycled press releases and fundraising notices. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, India, and Bihar. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. While RodBez has received some media attention, much of it focuses on the founders' personal stories and their appearance on Shark Tank India, rather than providing in-depth, independent coverage of the company's operations or impact.Pridemanty (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page fails WP:NCORP. Poor sources with no significant coverage. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GALAX

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

Reconrabbit prodded with the rationale, "Does not meet WP:NCORP; organization has not received substantial, independent coverage in its 30+ years of existence that I could find. Most sources are press releases or are covering Nvidia more than this group (which may get passing mention), and searching brings up a location in Virigina.", which is precisely what my searches turned up as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wen, Zhao 闻钊 (2008-05-19). "9600GT显卡深度超频" [9600GT graphics card deep overclocking]. China Computer Education (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner软件由影驰自主研发，并随该厂的GeForce 9600GT HDMI显卡附送，暂时只适用于该显卡。打开软件的控制面板，大家会发现其界面与其他厂商的显卡超频软件颇为相似，主要提供Shader频率、图形核心频率及显存频率调整功能，前两者还可设置为非同步模式进行调整，而且幅度极大。"
  From Google Translate: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner software is independently developed by Galaxy and comes with the GeForce 9600GT HDMI graphics card of the factory. It is only applicable to this graphics card for the time being. Open the control panel of the software, you will find that its interface is quite similar to other manufacturers' graphics card overclocking software, mainly providing shader frequency, graphics core frequency and video memory frequency adjustment functions. The first two can also be set to asynchronous mode for adjustment, and the amplitude is very large."
  The article notes: "根据笔者个人所作测试来看，在默认模式中把图形核心和内存频率提高，并把Shader频率设置为与核心频率同步，而风扇供电则保持为“Auto”模式。测试结果发现，预设频率为650/1800MHz的影驰9600GT显卡的最高图形核心超频能力为777MHz，显存则可超频到2266MHz，3DMark06测试得分由11382分提高到11715分，性能增幅为2.9%。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the author's personal test, the graphics core and memory frequencies are increased in the default mode, and the Shader frequency is set to synchronize with the core frequency, while the fan power supply remains in "Auto" mode. The test results show that the maximum graphics core overclocking capability of the Galaxy 9600GT graphics card with a preset frequency of 650/1800MHz is 777MHz, and the video memory can be overclocked to 2266MHz. The 3DMark06 test score increased from 11382 points to 11715 points, and the performance increase was 2.9%."
2. "回眸09显卡风云年度十大精品显卡全程回顾" [Looking back at the graphics card industry in 2009, a full review of the top ten graphics cards of the year] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-12-15.
  The article notes: "影驰9600GT中将版显卡采用了非公版PCB设计，使用了全封闭式电感搭配日本化工固态电容，整体做工扎实，用料非常不错。... 踏入2009年，首先值得我们记忆的就有影驰9600GT中将，这款显卡在08年的12月初就以699元的低价示人，这款显卡拥有强劲的供电配置、相当有个性的散热系统，加上默认高频以及低廉的售价，在09年的市场上就率先火了一把!以笔者的记忆，当时可谓受到众多的DIYer关注，几乎全国都出现有价无货的场面。而影驰9600GT中将在2009年的率先获得成功，除了产品的质量之外，很大程度上也要多得影驰市场运营上的成熟，与对消费者消费独到理解。而笔者认为影驰9600GT中将如果失去了一群出色的市场营销人员，那么它的确会失色不少。"
  From Google Translate: "The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition graphics card uses a non-public version PCB design, uses a fully enclosed inductor with a Japanese chemical solid capacitor, and has a solid overall workmanship and very good materials. ... Entering 2009, the first thing worth remembering is the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition. This graphics card was shown at the beginning of December 2008 at a low price of 699 yuan. This graphics card has a strong power supply configuration, a very unique cooling system, a default high frequency and a low price. It was the first to become popular in the market in 2009! As far as I remember, it attracted the attention of many DIYers at that time, and there was a situation of being out of stock almost all over the country. The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition was the first to succeed in 2009. In addition to the quality of the product, it was also largely due to the maturity of GALAX's market operations and its unique understanding of consumer consumption. And the author believes that if the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition lost a group of outstanding marketing personnel, it would indeed lose a lot of color."
3. "追求最高性价比超值中高端显卡推荐" [Pursuing the highest cost-effectiveness, high-end graphics cards recommended] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-08-03.
  The review notes: "影驰的显卡性价比一项很不错，特别是近期热卖的GTS250骨灰上将版，上市价为899元，而且还送NV原装键盘，有着738/2200MHz的核心显存频率，性价比非常好。影驰 GTS250骨灰上将版其核心采用55nm制程工艺，拥有128个流处理器，支持Phsyx物理引擎、CUDA并行运算，可以为游戏玩家提供更真实的游戏体验，性能相当强劲。制程工艺的提高，意味着产品成本的降低与功耗、发热量的降低，这无疑使得产品性价比更高了。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX graphics cards have a very good price-performance ratio, especially the GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition, which is popular recently. The listing price is 899 yuan, and it also comes with an NV original keyboard. It has a core memory frequency of 738/2200MHz, which is very cost-effective. The GALAX GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition uses a 55nm process technology, has 128 stream processors, supports Phsyx physics engine and CUDA parallel computing, and can provide gamers with a more realistic gaming experience. The performance is quite strong. The improvement of the process technology means the reduction of product costs and power consumption and heat generation, which undoubtedly makes the product more cost-effective."
4. "影驰9600GT中将版" [GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition]. 电脑商情报 [Computer Business Information] (in Chinese). 2008-08-05. ISSN 1003-9082.
  The review notes: "影驰9600GT中将版采用独特的非公版设计，PCB颜色沿用了影驰出道以来管用的深蓝色。影驰这款中将版Geforce9600GT并没有因为使用非公版而降低产品规格，无论在产品PCB设计还是用料做工上都不亚于公版产品。影驰9600GT中将版采用台积电(TSMC)使用65nm工艺设计的G94-300-A1核心，其拥有5.5亿晶体管和64个流处理器及12个光栅处理器，默认核心、Shader频率分别为公版的650MHz/1625MHz。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition adopts a unique non-public version design, and the PCB color continues to use the dark blue that has been used since GALAX debuted. GALAX's Lieutenant Edition Geforce9600GT has not lowered its product specifications due to the use of a non-public version. Both the product PCB design and the materials and workmanship are no less than the public version. GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition uses the G94-300-A1 core designed by TSMC using a 65nm process. It has 550 million transistors, 64 stream processors and 12 raster processors. The default core and shader frequencies are 650MHz/1625MHz of the public version."
5. Sun, Shangwei 孙尚伟 (2008-05-28). "影驰9600gso 龙骨散热的魅力" [The charm of the GALAX 9600GSO keel cooling]. Beijing Times (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "影驰　９６００ｇｓｏ中将版是影驰将官军衔系列中比较热门的一款，采用三星１．２ｎｓ　ｇｄｄｒ３颗粒，容量３８４ｍｂ，实现５７５╱１６００ｍｈｚ的默认频率。它沿用了影驰８８００系列时代起采用的经典非公版ｐｃｂ，供电设计更加安全。来自酷冷的龙骨风格热管散热器有着比公版更高的散热效率和更低的噪音水平，是这款显卡最大的看点所在。　　"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GSO Lieutenant General Edition is a popular model in the GALAX general rank series. It uses Samsung 1.2NS GDDRR3 particles, 384MB capacity, and achieves a default frequency of 575/1600MHz. It uses the classic non-public version PCB adopted by GALAX 8800 series, and the power supply design is safer. The keel style heat pipe radiator from Cool Cool has higher heat dissipation efficiency and lower noise level than the public version, which is the biggest highlight of this graphics card."
6. "林世強博士奮發創建電競品牌專注自強熱心公益" [Dr. Lin Shiqiang works hard to create an e-sports brand, focusing on self-improvement and being enthusiastic about charity]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-08-26. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "經歷了屢敗屢戰的艱苦磨礪，林世強博士終於找到事業發展的新契機。2000年，影馳攜手全球電腦顯卡芯片製造龍頭公司NVIDIA，拓展電腦顯卡市場，影馳並且正式成為NVIDIA的核心夥伴。及至2003年，林世強博士正式推出全球市場戰略，他以創新科研為自主品牌的核心，以遊戲玩家為重心推行中高端發展路線，以「專注、多元、創新、重質」為經營理念，目前公司擁有齊全的產品線，除了主要的顯示卡外，還有固態硬碟、記憶體、主機板與鍵盤等，在業內取得良好口碑，每年逾數百萬件顯卡及電腦配件產品，遠銷至世界各地，包括東南亞、歐洲、南美洲、南非等地。"
  From Google Translate: "After experiencing the hardships of repeated failures, Dr. Lin Shiqiang finally found a new opportunity for career development. In 2000, GALAX joined hands with NVIDIA, the world's leading computer graphics card chip manufacturer, to expand the computer graphics card market, and GALAX officially became NVIDIA's core partner. In 2003, Dr. Lin Shiqiang officially launched the global market strategy. He took innovative scientific research as the core of the independent brand, promoted the mid-to-high-end development route with gamers as the focus, and took "focus, diversity, innovation, and quality" as the business philosophy. The company currently has a complete product line. In addition to the main graphics cards, there are also solid-state drives, memory, motherboards and keyboards, etc., and has gained a good reputation in the industry. Every year, more than millions of graphics cards and computer accessories are sold all over the world, including Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, South Africa and other places."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GALAX (simplified Chinese: 影驰; traditional Chinese: 影馳) 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) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fairly convincing. I obviously didn't find any of these, not even on other language Wikipedia articles for the subject. If incorporated into the article it would make a good case for renoving the maintenance tenplates present. Recon rabbit 22:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX

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

Contested draftification: non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. [24] and [25] are likely paid sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Singapore, United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, no reliable secondary sourcing. Clear WP:COI with the article creator. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing; entirely press releases. Hmr (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as before, which was closed as a soft delete. The sources are not independent but consist mostly of press releases or passing mentions in routine announcements. Sources that discuss the subject are either unreliable or not independent, ultimately failing the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, Tamil Nadu, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The article now cites multiple **independent and reliable sources** that offer **significant coverage** of Ahimsa Entertainment. These include:
  - Independent coverage**:
- Style Vanity – a feature article, not a press release. - International Business Times – a mainstream news outlet covering the company's growing presence in overseas markets. - Chennai Vision – reports on the company’s direct involvement in international box office records. - CinemaSpice – regional film news platform covering their strategic distribution role.

These go **beyond trivial mentions** and highlight the company's significance in the Indian overseas film market. Furthermore, Ahimsa Entertainment has handled global distribution for high-profile films like Leo, Varisu, Beast, and Vendhu Thanindhathu Kaadu — all commercial blockbusters with international reach. This establishes its notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG.
Happy to work further on improving sourcing and neutrality, but this company clearly passes notability standards. — ~~~~ Nathan2711 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Style Vanity, as described on its website, evolved from a personal blog to a beauty website focusing on Asian Beauty, tackling skin concerns, and providing informative and honest product reviews. It has no relevance in reporting about companies, films or distribution. It is likely a website used for publishing guest articles to improve SEO.

WP:IBTIMES - International Business Times is unreliable.

Chennai Vision's article is more about Vijay (actor) and Leo (2023 Indian film) than about the subject and does not have a byline.

CinemaSpice only briefly mentions the subject.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeraxmoira's analysis. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boxabl

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

At first glance it looks Ok, but when you look deeper almost all sources are bad or primary, such as interviews, articles with too many quotations, press releases and announcements, a few SEC filings and routine news about ELon Musk buying a unit Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment. Several citations primarily discuss Elon Musk’s alleged purchase of a unit, which he later denied on Twitter, making their accuracy questionable. The remaining sources include SEC filings, routine news coverage, announcement, press releases, etc. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very promotional in tone and likely UPE, but it is notable with references like these which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Needs stripped of the press releases, social media references, and churnalism if anyone is willing to perform the WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with CNMall41 that is is promotional and likely UPE. A few references mentioned seem OK, but most references are passing mentions, press releases, churnalism. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Boxabl does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Most sources are press releases, SEC documents or small news without deep information. Many talk about Elon Musk, but WP:INHERITORG says this kind of celebrity link is not enough to be notable. The article looks promotional and COI problems. Pridemanty (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of citations used in this article do not meet WP:RS[26][27] and include references to the subject's own website, along with links to Elon Musk's X account.[28] desmay (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "number" are also WP:CORPDEPTH which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Please tell me why the three sourced provided above in my !Keep vote would not meet those standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very strange that no one voting !Delete is able to refute the sources I provided. No comment on the voting history as of yet but would ask closing admin to look closely at the edit history of this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Businessinsider is behind a paywall so I cannot confirm that is a good source. News Journal is mostly quotations and would be considered unreliable. SF Examiner is not too in-depth. However, even considering that 2 of these might be OK, we still need more than 2 good sources to establish notability. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I've been consistent about HEY for the past few years: a person claiming that sources exist has to do the work to add them to the page. Between the November 2024 citation drive, and my current project assessing every Law-stub, I've rescued dozens of articles in the past five months. When a major claim of the article is refuted, fairly and honestly or not, then it needs more work than ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment about people not performing HEY. If you take a look at my work with Wikiproject Companies you will know I don't just make a claim unless it can be supported. I think I would partially agree about TNT, although AfD isn't cleanup. I stubified and sourced it, and a WP:BEFORE can be done to see the other references that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. On a normal day I would have recommended G11 but the voting in this AfD prior to yours raised my eyebrows. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Pictures

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

This article is about a film production company that fails to meet notability. The article is sourced only to the company's web site. My search for coverage only turns up passing mentions about them when covering some films where the company was involved. This falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentions and churnalism is what I find in a search. Nothing that would fall under WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced promotional article for non-notable company. They may become notable someday, but when that happens, someone can write a new article. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Looks like promotional article with sources that have no coverage on the subject. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Solvent Extractions

(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 should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like opening new plants, entering into new business segments like icecream, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:13, 28 March 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) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My own English-language searching turned up nothing that can be used for establishing notability. I am willing to change my vote if sufficient Hindi or other language sources can be found. Moritoriko (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. - Imcdc Contact 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Industries Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An alternative to deletion could be merging with CK Birla Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:09, 28 March 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) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. One Business source and two primary sources do not make notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Agree with Nom, as ATD to merge with C.K.Birla group. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

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

A suspended company from the stock exchange. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 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) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 google news hit. The first source appears dead, 2nd source doesn't link to anything. 3rd source doesn't even mention this company. 4th and 5th sources are generic and don't refer to company. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this fails WP:CORP guidelines. I Will note that searching for the topic is difficult due to search collisions with Raspberry Pi software, and someone who knows more about the company may be able to perform a more successful search. Most information I can find comes from the company's website itself. Apparently they write ticketing ID software for railroads these days. News coverage that I found is generic business news noting investments/partnerships/mergers. Other sources are filings with the UK government.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I mainly found directory listings like this. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORP. In general, government findings may be OK depending on the context but I don't think that really applies in this scenario. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies (WP:CORP). The discussion indicates a significant lack of independent, reliable sources providing substantial coverage of the company. Initial searches yielded few relevant results, with much of the available information being either from the company itself, unreliable (dead links), or non-significant, such as directory listings and routine business announcements. The difficulty in finding significant coverage, even considering potential search term collisions, suggests the company does not meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Therefore, deletion is warranted due to a lack of demonstrated notability. Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yongchang Real Estate

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

I wasn't able to find much significant coverage in English, or anything that would demonstrate notability as a company. There may be coverage in Chinese-language sources, but I admit having trouble conducting a WP:BEFORE for Chinese sources. Mooonswimmer 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like the best search terms are "永昌地产" ('Yongchang Real Estate') or "永昌集团" ('Yongchang Group'). It doesn't look like there's a lot out there, though. Mostly this company's own websites, generic company database entries, and some promotional cruft like this. The soccer team is definitely notable – the company for which it is named, not so much. Toadspike [Talk] 22:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual holding companies and REITs like this are all too common and almost never are notable. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are additional non-English references someone can present, nothing on the current page and nothing I find in English would meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [29] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embention Sistemas Inteligentes S.A

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources, as the organization does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on promotional content Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Portuguese Communities Council

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

Non-notable, weak articke Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a company but a statutory Council of the Portuguese Government with public elections for the Portuguese diaspora. More info here: https://portaldascomunidades.mne.gov.pt/pt/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas

Information for Portugal's electoral commission as well: https://www.cne.pt/content/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas Diogo Costa (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In its current state as a stub it is indeed a "weak article", but that is not grounds for deletion. The council is a government advisory body and has focused coverage in governmental and independent reliable sources: [30], [31], [32], [33]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yue (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yue. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDCLIFFE Partners

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: WP:Articles for deletion/Redcliffe Partners * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources cited: 6 are press releases published by the EBA, 2 are press releases published by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, 2 are press releases on the company's own WWW site, 1 is a press release published by the USIDFC, 1 is a press release on the company's LinkedIn page, 1 is a listing page that is empty, 1 the Financial Times is behind a paywall, 1 is a law firm directory listing, 2 are press releases/autobiography by Clifford Chance, 3 are ranked directories of companies, 3 are shortlistings for awards (not actually winning them), 1 is an interview published by a marketing consultancy, 2 are dead links, 1 is a press release on gazeta.ua, 2 are ranking listings and an interview on yur-gazeta.com, 1 is a list of corporate sponsors of an event, 1 simply mentions that the firm handled a contract, 2 are page not founds, 3 are about law and business practice in Ukraine in general (2 not even mentioning this company, the other quoting its CEO), 1 is about a person who worked at the company applying for another position, 4 are CEE Legal Matters recycling press releases, 2 are CEE Legal Matters covering itself, 1 is CEE Legal Matters interviewing executives, 2 are CEO interviews by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a recycled press release by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a corporate puff piece in Comments.UA.
There is not a single reliable in-depth on-point independent source in the lot of them. This is egregious corporate puffery. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Redcliffe Partners. This version should have been drafted and submitted it via WP:AFC, where a discussion on the article's merits could have properly occurred. Also importantly, the article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG -- this is obvious from the above analysis of sources by Uncle G. - tucoxn\^talk 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did find Kyivpost, and partly Comments and Gazeta.ua have the decent coverage, but it's true that interviews and paid placements are not included here. I think more sources exist, given the vast activity of the law firm at home. Unicorbia (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FindSALT

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

I propose the deletion of the FindSALT Wikipedia page due to its lack of notability, as it relies on limited sources that do not provide substantial independent coverage or establish its significance within the restaurant industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep I lean toward keeping this article. There is independent coverage in gulf news and Conde Nast traveler. The fact that someone had to clarify that the restaurant in london is not from UAE also suggests notability to me.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleos insurance

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

Lack of notability, as it is primarily supported by limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination claims Eleos Insurance lacks notability due to limited sources and insufficient significant coverage. However, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Just a search on Google news highlights many. They seem to have partnerships with well-known financial companies. Additionally, industry papers & media have covered Eleos’s role extensively. All these points to a level of recognition and impact that supports notability beyond limited scope. Bytanco (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful, see WP:ORGTRIV. There is not much in mainstream media. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs amendment rather than deletion. Additional reliable secondary sources from industry publications, financial news, and regulatory filings should be incorporated. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but requires better sourcing, which aligns with Wikipedia's preference for improvement over deletion. Wikinoleakshere (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with... Routine press releases, funding rounds, partnerships are not helpful,VViking_TalkEdits 14:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caprinos Pizza

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone, failing to provide enough credible, verifiable content to justify its presence as a standalone entry on Wikipedia. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is notable, the page documents an uprising multinational Pizza parlour, despite this, one of the few things I agree with is the fact there's too much promotional content, these are leftovers from when a caprinos employee tried to edit Wikipedia for their favor. If you CAN find reliable sources about the topic please link them below.

- WinterJunpei :3 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Review: Colchester Caprinos a great option for pizza-lovers". Daily Gazette. 2024-03-03. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The review notes: "Caprinos Pizza opened in North Station Road last September. ... Walking in, I was instantly very impressed by the décor, which felt modern and clean. I was greeted warmly by a staff member and the service was quick, not just because I was the only one there. After deliberating and then realising I was actually not that hungry, I decided to go for a small margherita pizza with a BBQ dip, as well as a side of fries. For just £9.48, £6.99 of which was for the pizza, the price was definitely a positive. It was a short ten-minute wait for the cooking and prep before I collected the goods and headed home to try it out. I was pleasantly surprised with the pizza itself. It was full of flavour and tasted delicious. ... The fries were a little disappointing. However - as with many things, they were made better by the dipping sauce."
2. Aldridge, James (2024-09-27). "Pizza chain in Reading could keep selling food at 4am". Reading Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Caprinos Pizza in Wokingham Road is a chain takeaway that serves up a range of pizzas, sides, salads, wraps, desserts, milkshakes and more. Caprinos is a growing chain, opening up in Reading in the Spring of 2021, taking over from the closed Christian Community Action charity shop. It has nearly 100 takeaways in the UK, with other locations in Thatcham, Newbury and Slough. The chain is a decade old, with the first Caprinos Pizza opening 20 miles away in Didcot in 2014."
3. Manuschka, Jacob (2024-08-08). "Oxford United kit to feature Caprinos Pizza logo this season". Bicester Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Oxford United has partnered with a pizza company in a deal which will see the firm become the official sleeve sponsor of the men's team. Caprinos Pizza, a chain founded in Oxfordshire, will sponsor the team for the 2024/25 season. ... Established in 2014, Caprinos Pizza has expanded to now have 99 stores across the UK, Ireland and Pakistan. In 2021, it opened its 40th branch, in Northcourt, Abingdon, having started with a store in Broadway, Didcot. ... The pizza takeaway service quickly became extremely popular within Didcot, causing the owners to branch out to other towns across the South East."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caprinos Pizza 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) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news articles of this chain are limited to local papers talking about new stores opening. The only exceptions are a couple articles saying that one franchise wanted to open late and a local paper saying that they sponsored a regional football team. Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Really only of local interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the sources given above seem hyper-local, with nothing beyond routine local news. I don't see any national or international sourcing... Being a great local place is fine, but we need something more than what we have for sourcing to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content appears promotional in tone. Additionally, the article does not provide substantial historical context or unique insights that justify its standalone existence. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some potential good sources but on a closer look they fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. For example, this article is basically an interview, this article is paid (see disclaimer "PARTNER CONTENT"), and this article is just full of quotes like "Mr Chandran says", "Mr Latheef says", "the founders say", "the partners say", "Mr Latheef adds", "chief executive of MySyara, says", and then at the end they posted a brief interview. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles here will establish notability: Forbes, The National News, Middle East Business, Expeienece Abu Dhabi, Jawlah, Zawya. I will stop here. There are many more. I also don't see anything that sounds promotional. The content is strictly about their major milestones, historical facts, such as acquisitions and partnerships. There is not much difference between this and hundreds of other similar companies on Wikipedia. Dear Nominator: Please name me one section that you think is promotional and I will remove or revise it. There is no need for deletion if the article can be improved. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: It is also suspect that a user with around 50 edits started doing nominations for page deletions. I think such tasks should be reserved for more experienced editors. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Race Craft

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

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Amigao (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, Connecticut, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
REASON? 2001:8A0:FA64:2600:9CEF:9F65:CE46:DC42 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - as Galactic said, the non-primary sources have a bias towards the company, and lack independence of the subject. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all sources are independent and non biased and not promotional 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge with personal page. All sources seem non promotional and non biased. Makes sense to merge with personal page 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although somewhat weak. Ignoring the SPA argument, all non-primary sources seem to be have a bias towards the company, and are probably not independent of the subject. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable. A couple are from Yellow Pages and a couple are dead. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Ağacı

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I could find is receiving a grant from the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and some blog posts. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Turkey. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find reliable sources. Unicorbia (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable, etc. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pollo Brujo

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

A chain with 10 locations just does not seem notable enough to me. There is some coverage, but it does not seem significant to me. One of the references used is an Ubereats link. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Latin America. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick look at the news tells us there is significant coverage on reliable sources. Also, as per nominator, it is ten locations IN GUATEMALA plus elsewhere, not ten locations only. Janette La Bruja Martin (dime?) 15:46, 22 March, 2025 (UTC)
Comment Per ads and advertorials in Newspapers.com, it started in the 1970s in Mexico, and by 1998 also had locations in Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama (to add to Colombia and Costa Rica as stated in this article). It sounds pretty big. As for coverage, there seems to be a book about it [34], published by Universidad de las Américas Puebla. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [35], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [36]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [37][38] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omnissa

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

not notable software (WP Product) Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Omnissa is the new name for what was a whole EUC division of VMware. There are wiki pages for the two main products of VMware Horizon (which should now be called Omnissa Horizon) and AirWatch (which should be called 'Omnissa Workspace ONE') MrTAP (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently configured, no notability has been established. The two references are press releases by the Omnissa and its new owner, KKR. They are not independent of the subject of the article and therefore shouldn't even be used as references. If this products lasts and gets independent coverage in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but not yet. Ira Leviton (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional references, but had only just started. Please note that both product wiki articles have existed for many years - they had just referred to the new company name but only linked to the old company name. MrTAP (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added references to two news articles on 'The Register' and 'TechTarget' regarding Omnissa being spun out of VMware. MrTAP (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete added sources are not reliable enough. However, if someone add new ones I may change my mind. Still think some sources may exist. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with VMware#Acquisition by Broadcom: Not quite enough coverage for a standalone article - I'm specifically concerned about the reliability of the TechTarget source, which is an opinion piece. Merging to its former parent company seems like the most natural solution. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be considered for deletion due to a lack of significant independent sources that establish its notability and its reliance on promotional content without context. However, it represents a newly formed company in the software and virtualization industry, which may gain relevance as it develops and potentially receives wider recognition in the future.--Xrimonciam (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Livebarn

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly nominated out of WP:REVENGE Delectopierre (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know revenge. Its too expensive. We will go the references in the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a news story whenever a locale purchases Livebarn. This is not WP:ROUTINE procurement coverage, nor is it WP:CORPTRIV. [39] [40] [41][42] Longhornsg (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its press-release that are being reported locally. Nothing that passes WP:SIRS We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to this, it self evidently passes WP:NCORP. This AfD wastes everyone's time.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a variety of reliable sources have been posted.yutsi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:

Ref 1 [43] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [44] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [45] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 4 [46] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [47] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [48] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

Ref 1 Its above.
Ref 2 Its above.
Ref 5 [49] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 6 [50] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
Ref 9 [51] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.

In fact not a single one of these references satisfy WP:NCORP. They fails WP:SIRS,WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources. Additionally, even if all of those were simply announcements of partnerships (they aren't) WP:CORPTRIV says absolutely nothing about partnerships being trivial mentions. Delectopierre (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR for non notable company. Scope Creeps analysis looks honest and accurate to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]

Describing a CBC article titled Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game that is quite literally about Livebarn and HomeTeam Live (a competitor of Livebarn's) as a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS is honest and accurate?

How about cherry picking a single sentence in that article that correctly the company's description to their website, and therefore discounting the CBC as not independent?

How about a NYT/Athletic article titled Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach as a routine annoucement of partnership?

Shall I keep going? Delectopierre (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't start WP:BLUDGEONING other editors because you don't like their !votes. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye in the sky is about streaming services in general and just uses those two as examples, making passing mentions of both.

The extent of coverage about Livebarn itself in that second article was taken from Livebarn themselves. That lacks independence.

NYT/Athletic Just mentions he watched games on Livebarn. Passing mention, No depth of coverage. Yes it does look like Scope characterised that one incorrectly but it's still trivial.

How about "Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release." Yes, honest and accurate. Found on business wire. Reads like a press release. Complete with contacts for both companies. Ends wi5th about sections on both. Obviously a press release.

How about "Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent." Yes, honest and accurate. Entire mention is "These investments included a recent $14 million investment in LiveBarn, ..." Clearly just a passing mention of an Investment in livebarn from the investor. Just a passing mention means it fails on point one of SIRS. Being from the investor means it fails point 2 of SIRS.

Those two show your pronouncement that "In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources." is not honest or accurate.

And how about The Albertan: "the Sundre Minor Hockey Association was pleased to announce the local launch of a LiveBarn service." Sounds like an announcement to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the assessment presented by scope_creep show that the subject doesn't pass notability guidelines.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRITE, does not appear to have sufficient valid secondary sourcing. I also agree with ScopeCreep's assessment. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsure if this is even encyclopedic. The sources do not seem strong. Not all streaming companies are notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pandora! I have made changes in the article. Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I am not an expert in analyzing Indian sources, but the company seems to have the minimum notability for an article ([52], [53], [54]). If there is promotional content, it should be removed without prejudice to the existence of the article as a whole (WP:DINC). Svartner (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly promotional article. CJ Darcl Logistics provides a broad range of services... Most of the references are just press releases or announcements. the coverage is typical sponsored churnalism lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are press releases, announcements and churnalism. The article sounds promotional and has many sections that are unnecessary.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the recent changes, I believe the article follows the wikipedia guidelines with adequate information.Thanks!Rachitmisr (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mrfoogles: Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. This will remove about half of the listings and leave only the ones that are notable enough to have their own article. There are enough notable breweries in the county to justify an article listing them. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:48 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is also Beer in San Diego County, California#Notable breweries as a merge target. There are fewer than 20 notable breweries and we certainly don't need a standalone page for just a bulleted list when there's this article and the statewide list. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of breweries in California retaining only notable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of breweries in California: It makes more sense to merge list with list I think. Both lists should be trimmed of non-notable shops though. Moritoriko (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of breweries in California: Agree with Ajf773 above - None of the other counties have a separate page. Page for List of breweries in California is big, but as suggested above, it can be trimmed to keep only notable entries after the merge. Asteramellus (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to satisfy WP's GNG criteria for this hospital. See [55], [56], [57], [58]. AndySailz (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the new sources will be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Five out of six sources fail the WP:SIRS check. The only good source we have is this, but it focuses more on a victim than the subject. Article does not pass WP:NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are all reliable Satipem (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already have news citations Satipem (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete, although as these are news citations, they are reliable Satipem (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems like it has some potential but it is not ready for mainspace. Looks like a directory than an encyclopedic page. Can be improved in draft space before coming to mainspace. Ramos1990 (talk)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

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

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to Moritoriko for creating this AFD. My intention had been to nominate both together, but they should be okay as separate AFDs. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 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 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page has very few sources that actually discuss it, and relies too heavily on primary sources. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kolesar, Bryan J. (2015). Beer Lover's Mid-Atlantic: Best Breweries, Brewpubs & Beer Bars. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-4930-0155-2. Retrieved 2025-03-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The forebearer to The Pour House, PJ Whelihan's dates back to 1983 and has a dozen locations, a "Wing Truck," and two arena locations in the family. This is the original location. Here, you'll find a similar (though not quite as intense as at The Pour House) focus on great beer and food. That means instead of multiple Cape Mays, Cartons, Dogfish Heads, Flying Fishes, and Kanes, you might find one or two. Oh, are we not spoiled around these parts? To wrap up your day on Haddon Avenue, if it's time for a meal to balance everything out, PJ's has you covered with lots of pub grub, of which the buffalo wings are a must, but so too are the eggplant fries with Bloody Mary dipping sauce, Alaskan amber fish-and-chips, and the Italian roast pork sandwich with long hots."
2. Hefler, Jan (2003-08-03). "His pubs are a hit: The small chain got its start in Pa". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Bob Platzer has been the blur in the background, dashing about while the patrons in his pubs relax with mugs of microbrew and heaping platefuls of spicy buffalo wings. Ten years ago, Platzer opened his first P.J. Whelihan's Pub in Allentown, naming it after his late Irish grandfather, a night editor at the now defunct New York Daily Mirror. ... Today, the Haddonfield, Camden County, resident has four P.J.s in South Jersey and three in Pennsylvania, including one in Blue Bell. He is set to open another in South Jersey this fall, an estimated $3.5 million pub in Medford Lakes, Burlington County. Although he declined to discuss the value of the business, it's clear from the multiplication of the pubs that he's hit on a successful formula. Folks like to hang out at P.J. Whelihan's Pubs. On a busy night, each pub might serve about 1,000 people, Platzer said. The pubs are known for friendly, spunky waitstaff, an assortment of beers on tap — 12, including one from Cherry Hill's Flying Fish Brewing Co. — and big-screen TVs around oversize bars. Born as a burger-and-wings place, the pubs recently added salads and seafood selections to the menu."
3. Wlazelek, Anne (1994-09-02). "My Favorite Place". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "Driving from Fogelsville to Allentown each day, I was duly impressed by the transformation of the exterior of the former Halfway House bar and restaurant into P.J. Whelihan's Pub. ... Inside, diners can find an eclectic selection of food and decor. Besides the house specials of hot and spicy chicken wings, chicken cheesesteaks and pork barbecues, the Pub provides baskets of shrimp, burgers and fries, and "surf and turf" combinations of shrimp and steak. ... The interior appears to be a cross between a sports bar and a country inn. Photos of Babe Ruth and John Lennon hang on the walls. Dress is casual."
4. Klein, Michael (2017-01-05). "Pub chain P.J. Whelihan's got there, largely by winging it". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "In late 1983, Bob Platzer drove to Lehighton, in the Poconos, based on a lead about a restaurant for sale. "Before I left that day, I had bought a restaurant," he said. The restaurant, which he named after himself (Platz's), led to a second restaurant in Allentown that specialized in burgers, wings, and beer. This was the start of a pub empire in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that now includes 14 P.J. Whelihan's sports bars; three branches of Pour House, a beer specialist; the fine-dining restaurant Chophouse; and Treno Pizza Bar. Among its distinctions: P.J. Whelihan's provides the wings used in SportsRadio 94 WIP's Wing Bowl."
5. Henninger, Danya (2015-07-05). "P.J. Whelihan's quest for the perfect bar food menu: 'Could we be serving *better* nachos?'". Billy Penn. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "After starting in 1983 with a single location in Lehighton, PA, there are now 15 P.J. Whelihan’s locations across the Southeast PA / South Jersey region (though none in Philadelphia). The casual pub has built a reputation on a great selection of draft beer, but also — and perhaps even more — a menu of reliable, crowd-pleasing bar food. People who go to one location know that if they visit any of the others, they’ll get the same familiar burgers, apps and sandwiches."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow P.J. Whelihan's 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) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the available sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. All I can find, including the sourcing above, are advertorials regurgitating corporate spin or gushing food reviews from people who were invited to go "behind the scenes". Failure to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Half the references are primary from the company website. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that the sources found do not offer the required SIGCOV. Kudos to Tryptofish for their honest and unbiased assessment of the sources they presented, and to Bearian for his disclosure. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Winery

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

This is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these sources: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:

The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.

The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.

Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.

Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.

Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:

But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.

Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.

To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.

By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.

Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.

Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.

Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.

I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.

The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.

Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.

I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There seems to be enough sourcing to justify a small article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:

- Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.

- Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: none of those 5 sources were news sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, @DotesConks.

My concern, based on this new data, and even with you excellently cleaning up the article to eliminate content that was PR copy taken directly from their website, is that the article will remain unable to be fleshed out into one that meet's Wikipedia standards. The current content of the article is a textbook example of exactly the type of article that should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR (not a directory) and WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient significant coverage beyond routine business reporting and PR). Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTDIR makes it clear that simple listings of businesses do not warrant standalone articles. The content of this article amounts to little more than, "There is a business called City Winery with locations in various cities," which is precisely the kind of business cataloging Wikipedia is not meant to host. If it had meaningful cultural or historical significance (which is difficult to achieve, considering that the business is quite new and thus would be difficult to be of "historical significance"), someone would have written about that instead of just listing its offered services, where it is, and who played there.

The available citations fail to provide substantive coverage of the subject, making it impossible to write a meaningful, encyclopedic article. Instead, as stated above, what exists is a short business listing and advertising PR, because that is all that can be written with the citations available.

Additionally, WP:GNG requires significant, independent, and sustained coverage in reliable sources. However, the sources provided do not offer substantial analysis of City Winery as a unique cultural or business entity in its own right. They are either brief mentions in the context of business listings, passing references in articles about other topics, or promotional content that does not contribute to notability. Without robust secondary sources that provide a deeper examination of the company’s history, influence, or unique contributions, there is no way to expand this article into something encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the fact that notable musicians have performed at City Winery locations does not make the venue itself notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is merely a standard business operations statement. It is a concert venue. People perform concerts there. Nothing noteworthy about that basic business function. This is the same flawed reasoning that has led to improper justifications for similar business-oriented articles in the past. A venue's significance must be demonstrated through independent third-party coverage that focuses on the venue itself, not simply by listing artists who have played there.

To clarify:

This is just a "this place exists" article. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion.

Wikipedia is not a business directory or a "document everything" database. It is an encyclopedia, and articles need to demonstrate why a subject matters in a broader historical, cultural, or societal context. Right now, the City Winery article lacks that context entirely.

The article contains: No cultural impact analysis; No historical significance; No indication that it changed or influenced anything; No evidence that it pioneered or defined a movement or trend.

Instead, the article reads like a glorified brochure or Yelp listing:

Here’s a business. Here are some locations. Here are some concerts that happened.

The current citations do not support the capacity for development of a substantial entry. If and when such coverage emerges, an article could be recreated with actual depth. At this stage, however, City Winery does not appear capable of even potentially meeting the threshold for inclusion, and deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop bludgeoning the discussion @Qinifer or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinifer, this page is ~29,000 bytes; of that, you have contributed nearly 20,000. That is not a demonstration of academic rigour. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:CA8:12E3:13D0:8A44 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we need to hear from more experienced AFD participants. If you've already made an argument, please give new voices some space to review sources with fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is a close one given the sources, but while there does seem to be some independent secondary sources, the widespread independent coverage in those sources is lacking based on a cursory search. If further evidence towards widespread coverage, it would be more convincing. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written is essentially a WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 04:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't feel comfortable !voting because I'm friends of friends with the owner (Manhattan being the smallest village in the world). I feel obligated to tell you that the son of the owner, Nick, who has used Sockpuppets, has heavily edited the article. The closing administrator must decide whether the sources, which do exist, are significant enough. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Two references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it really does read like a promotion and is not encyclopedic. Seems there is COI issues too on the owner’s page Michael Dorf. There are many venues for music in any city. We do not need to make article for these unless they really are significant. Ramos1990 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Companies proposed deletions

Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)