Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

Nomad (app)

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

The app seems to have no notability and what appears to be a bogus link to another company, with no reliable sources confirming it. The sources provided with mentions of the Nomad app appear to be promotional in nature and therefore I believe that this article should be deleted. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure what exactly the Nominator means by bogus link to another company. If he means their website URL is not them, then he is wrong. There is a link to their website from Apple here and also Aljazeera, so there is nothing bogus about it. Here are a list of sources that confirm they are notable: NY Times has a good coverage on them, Wall Street Journal has coverage on them, CNBC has selected them as one of 9 best eSIM cards and has a good amount of info on them, techradar has a great lengthy review on them and Drift Travel has a review on them. There are several others, but I believe these are enough to show notability.

I also think this nominator may not have enough experience yet to be doing deletion nominations, seeing that his account was only created about 15 days ago at the time of nomination. Maybe he should hold off doing nominations, until he is more experienced. I will be checking some of his other edits/nominations (if any) and if I find any issues, I'll report him to the admins.Jasonswat (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — In regards to the “bogus link to another company” comment that I made, allow me to explain. In the history section of the article, there is a mention of the app being “a business line of LotusFlare, Inc., a [...] company founded by former Facebook and Microsoft engineers”. What I meant is that the fact the company (Nomad) is owned by another company which was founded by former engineers of well-known companies is being used as a way to make Nomad appear more notable. A company does not automatically become notable because of their parent company or the founders of the parent company it belongs to.

The article itself fails to demonstrate that Nomad, meets WP:GNG. To be notable, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the app is mentioned in several sources, the coverage appears to be brief or trivial. Many of the references in the article (e.g: TechRadar, Mashable, PCMag) are general roundups or listicles of "best eSIMs for travel," where Nomad is briefly mentioned without substantial analysis or focus.

The sources cited (e.g: New York Times, Wall Street Journal) mention Nomad in the context of eSIM technology, but these mentions do not provide significant coverage focused on Nomad itself. The app itself does not appear to offer any groundbreaking technology or features that distinguishes it significantly from competitors. The services it provides (e.g: mobile data plans for international travelers, regional eSIM plans) are common in the eSIM industry and are offered by many similar companies. As a result, the subject does not appear to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to the broader field of eSIM or telecommunications technology.

While the app is noted for its use during communication blackouts in Gaza, the mention is trivial and not well-supported by significant independent coverage. This does not elevate the app to notability in terms of enduring or widespread coverage.

Some other sources, like Mashable and TechRadar, appear to be affiliate or promotional content, which is discouraged under Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article includes promotional language, such as descriptions of Nomad’s features and services, without critical or analytical discussion. Phrases like "Nomad eSIMs take the tension out of international data travel" (sourced from Mashable) and the inclusion of extensive product details suggest that the article may serve more as an advertisement than as a neutral encyclopedia entry.

On your last point. I appreciate your concern that you believe I may be an inexperienced editor. We all start from somewhere. However, threatening to report me to the administrators is not appropriate. If you find something worthy of the administrator team's attention, by all means make them aware but please don't use that as a way to discourage myself or other editors to make contributions to Wikipedia. I have seen editors who have been here for years who are clueless about so much and I have seen other editors who know so much in a short period of time because of their genuine interest.

Time on Wikipedia does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable; knowledge makes someone knowledgeable. I hope we can now stay on-topic.

Nyxion303 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I have reservations about the nominator's claim that it has no notability. According to my research, this app has been downloaded over 100,000 times on the Google Play Store and is ranked in the top 100 travel apps on the App Store. In addition, data from Similarweb shows that the average monthly visits to this website is around 600,000. So I think it has notability. Howiezhao (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. automobile production figures

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

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a relic of an earlier era that would be more useful as tabular data on Commons. After 19 years, it's only linked to by 3 articles - two of them as improper circular references rather than useful wikilinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and nom. I am sure someone else has collected these figures before but it won't have the significant coverage to sustain such a list. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news media does cover which are the bestselling vehicles of the year. Google news search for bestselling vehicles in America and each year, finds some results in reliable sources giving significant coverage to this. We have articles for List of best-selling automobiles and List of automobile sales by model. List of countries by motor vehicle production exist as well. This list just shows how many vehicles were made in America by each company year by year. Does production per country get coverage, or just global sales? Dream Focus 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be WP:SYNTH issues? In which case I would argue just for a redirect to the automobile sales by model list as a potential target. Conyo14 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Ace

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

It has been 4 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it failes this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator Which reasons specifically are why this article fails? If one of them is WP:NCRYSTAL, this refers to unverifiable content. There was a speculative line in the article that could not be verified by its footnote, so I've removed it, but the rest of the article is sourced properly. That aside, canceled, upcoming, or prototype/concept products can have articles as long as there's significant coverage. I don't agree that the content should be deleted, but I think merging the articles for Alpha Jax and Alpha Saga—which are two vehicles based directly off this one—into the nominated article would make sense. Either that, or merging all three into Alpha Motor Corporation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alpha Motor Corporation would be OK, as at this time they do not exist. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation as WP:TOOSOON. Merging (if any, as the target already mentions the subject) can be done from history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cook

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Mostly press releases and trivial mentions. The only potentially useful coverage I could find is her profile in pharmexec.com. C F A 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Business. C F A 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the original creator of the article as a larger effort to provide coverage to pharmaceutical scientists and while writing it was really struggling to find sources. Now that Grail isn't as significant of a company as when I first wrote the article, I accept that this wasn't worth the effort. Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and article author that article fails WP:GNG Nnev66 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't Linked-in. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Asset Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SIGCOV. Deriannt (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are "company profiles" and non-interesting short pieces about the comings and goings of executives. It is a subsidiary of Boston Trust but we don't have an article for that so there's no redirect or merge target. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Israel. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this reads as an advertisement and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PAAMCO

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Had a lot of COI and promotional edits. A quick search focuses only on the subject being part of a merger with another entity so the current subject in article no longer operates under this name. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find company profiles, short articles in business news about executive comings and goings, SEC filings ... in short, nothing independent/nothing significant. It does indeed fail WP:NCORP. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [1] or [2] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [3] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top Third Ventures

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant (Indian executive)

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

Non notable executive, fails wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, India, and Rajasthan. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former CEO of Tata Motors [4] is a non-notable executive??? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BASIC, Wp:NINI and Wp:INVALIDBIO Notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable executive, i have added citations and made it better. Taabii (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack

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

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Nominator has a clear paid COI with the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure running a predatory company is the stuff of notability here. Could be seen as a form of PROMO to whitewash these issues? Regardless, I I can only find PR items, nothing helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom is an employee of the subject and is being paid to delete the article. I don't think we should acquiesce to the company's desires. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is very promotional and lacks independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [5]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was heading towards a delete opinion, though reading a web translation of the company's own detailed and frank description of their business history, the impact of Amazon acquiring into their market, etc. made me wonder if some form of WP:ATD towards the wider view might exist? The decent coverage of this and other e-comm firms in Christopher Schroeder's 2017 MIT Technology Review article encourages that view, though I still see no suitable target. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat

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

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [6] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [7] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [8] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [9] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [10] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [11] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [12]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (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 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk as an alternative to deletion, since that's its parent company. There's enough sources including Techcrunch (some have bylines and not all of the articles are just rehashes of PR statements) and brief mentions in academic overviews of videochat services, that it should be mentioned on a suitable page, even if it does not meet NCORP on its own (it's at best borderline). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is closed as merge, please ping me and I will carry out the merge. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk per Patar knight, at the time both paltalk and tinychat articles did meet WP:NCORP. Why is it voted to be deleted now? Koltinn (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Paltalk as volunteered by Patar knight above. The format/funding info and references in the article may have been sufficient in 2009 but fall short of the subsequently refined WP:NCORP criteria. And the present Paltalk article is long on lawsuits / short on acquisitions, so could benefit from the introduction of a broader view, including brief coverage of their operation of Tinychat over the past 10 years. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]