Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:05, 16 May 2024

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures (company)

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted twice under the name AC Ventures as WP:ADMASQ and failing WP:NCORP, and the current version seems no different. In particular, all sources here were already considered and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a source assessment table: jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"AC Ventures reaches first close of a $250M fund for Southeast Asian startups". techcrunch.com. 14 September 2022.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund, see prev	✘ No
"AC Ventures' Journey With Adrian Li: Fueling Growth and Impact in Southeast Asia". AsiaTechDaily - Asia's Leading Tech and Startup Media Platform. 9 February 2024.	blog, see prev	blog, see prev		✘ No
Shu, Catherine (23 January 2024). "AC Ventures closes its new $210M Indonesia-focused fund". TechCrunch.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund	✘ No
Rosendar, Yessar. "Indonesian VC Firm AC Ventures Closes $205 Million Fund, On The Hunt For Early Stage Startups". Forbes.	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		✘ No
Staff, TechNode Global (2024-01-23). "AC Ventures raises $210M to back tech-enabled businesses in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". TNGlobal. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210 million for fifth investment fund". The Business Times. 2024-01-23. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	no discussion		✘ No
Mulia, Khamila (2021-12-01). "Indonesia's AC Ventures closes third fund at USD 205 million". KrASIA. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	see prev	see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures launches advisor community to help startups achieve operational excellence from day one". Asia Food Journal. 2023-02-21. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	no discussion		✘ No
"Indonesia's AC Ventures said to have closed fifth fund at around $200m". DealStreetAsia.	see prev	no discussion	paywall	✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210mil to back founders in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". Digital News Asia. 28 January 2024.	press release	no discussion		✘ No
"AC Ventures' Pandu Sjahrir on Asean's Economic Resilience". www.bloomberg.com.	see prev	~ see prev		✘ No
"Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". www.techinasia.com.	see prev	see prev	about report	✘ No
Yong, Yimie (25 May 2023). "Tech sector may be in 'funding winter' but AC Ventures sees opportunities in EV, circular economy & sustainable agriculture, says Managing Partner [Q&A]". TNGlobal.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Indonesia, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the history here should be enough TBH, but I can't find anything on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBX Music

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

An article for a non-notable record label that was created by the owner of the record label himself. Not only is this article a clear WP:COI, but is a total WP:GNG failure as well. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the more important indie labels per WP:MUSIC; has no notable artists. Chubbles (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find sufficient sources for this to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG. Every reference listed is primary and unreliable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from the apparent lack of notability, I am concerned about a potential WP:PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 18:07, 22 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant CZ

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

Does not meet WP:NORG criteria. The page was obviously written as self-promotion. After restructuring in 2021 and renaming to DOMINANT Genetika s.r.o., it has only 10-19 employees (according to the Business Register). The page is said to have been translated from cswiki, but it has already been deleted there as well. FromCzech (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article here gives a more detailed history of the firm's several restructurings (prior to the most recent restructuring mentioned in the nomination), indicating Dominant CZ was founded in 1998. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a family firm, consisting mainly of a product list referenced to their own site. Searches find mainly routine coverage (company listings, distribution partners, trade shows); the Redcomb Genetics item linked above is the best available but falls short of demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything about this company outside of routine coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

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

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, Medicine, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 28 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Shallipopi#Career. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plutomania Records

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

NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Nigeria. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shallipopi: For now, as it fails WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT, in the future it might have more WP:SIGCOV in WP:NGRS. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per Vanderwaalforces. There's insufficient significant coverage for now. @T.C.G. [talk] 07:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shallipopi#Career Reading Beans 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shallipopi#Career: Best summary. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:46, 18 May 2024 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronix corporation

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

Purely promotional. Can we move it to the draft or delete? Tanhasahu (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to Delete, the company is no longer in business 76.192.65.129 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've found one source, Tilly, Chris; Carré, Françoise J. (2017). Where bad jobs are better: Retail jobs across countries and companies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 42, 62–63, 65–67, 94, 97, 108. ISBN 978-1-61044-870-3. which seems reasonable. Usually what we do for these older, poorly sourced articles where pretty much nobody would even know has been draftified is to reduce it to a stub of a few sentences, basically what can be verified to the sources and which tone would not be a problem, and then tagg it with the relevant Wikipedia:Maintenance tags. Would this be acceptable to the two of you, Tanhasahu and Sgubaldo? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to that book, but if that's the case, then sure. The only mentions in the books I can find are very brief. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Deletion will be better. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm having trouble finding anything else, might bump it to ARS though to see if they have any more luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 19 May 2024 (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 merge‎ to Amazon (company). I'm just going to assume the participants don't have that gadget installed and meant the redirect target. Feel free to merge to a different target instead though, since any editorial decisions made afterwards are no longer AfD's problem. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amazon Inc.: per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FightBrightTigh: Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect. This should show up for you as a different colored font. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, references unable to establish independent notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 28 May 2024 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff

AfDs for this article:

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

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Companies, and Nebraska. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [1], [2]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 21 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 23:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight.works

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

Non-notable company per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Contested PROD. There is not really much secondary coverage on the company. The purported notability is on the AppStore success of one title, Hashiriya Drifter. Sources in the article are primary or have a WP:PROMO feel, with this source even inviting readers to become part of the team. A very quick WP:BEFORE only finds some coverage from Nintendo Life about a allegations of the conduct of the studio making 'scam' games. None of this seems to cumulatively provide evidence of sustained, significant coverage about the studio that would warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a draft of an article for the next upload to improve its quality. This company resembles 11bit studios, which developed Frostpunk and other games, but not everyone is familiar with Frostpunk. VollyM (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to locate anything meeting the criteria. BBC pointed to an article in #diez, but on review of the original (google translate) it appears to also clearly fail ORGIND (the BBC coverage does not really go beyond that the article exists). It seems unlikely we'll be able to locate sources meeting the criteria beyond doubt. I'm not sure what VollyM means by their comment, if they want to keep working on a draft, I'm happy to support that (it can be requested at WP:REFUND if not closed that way), but in my judgement it is unlikely for eligible sources to exist. I would recommend making use of the draft review process if that is the path embarked upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they were kicked of the Playstation store sometime earlier this year (see [3][4][5]) and appear to be publishing more games under a bunch of different labels (see [6] and this comment in particular), though i'm unsure if that's enough to meet notability guidelines but figured I post this here (first time posting in these deletion discussions by the way so apologies if I did something wrong.) Knockknock987 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Deletion discussions are for everyone and it's important everyone shares their views in the context of the deletion policy. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong at all. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for caring about trying to do this correctly. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vrxces and Alpha3031 make a good case for deletion, and my own search uncovered nothing new. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG and NCORP.Dowrylauds (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence or even clear assertion of notability, plus lack of secondary sources for the article. Google search produces very few online mentions at all. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:36, 20 May 2024 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic

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

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [7] in particular gives details on them. Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [8] and [9]. Scientific testing on some of their products [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added. But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry.--Assirian cat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article. [11] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamharian Perfumes

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

Previously prodded, fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, almost entirely promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also seems to just be at least in part a rewording of their own website. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good cites found on GSearch (which are mostly social media and blogs), GNews and GNews Archives. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, there are no good, reliable, or secondary sources. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the citeunseen script, this page has 11 reliable sources, but all of them are trivial, especially routine coverage, as Alpha3031 has rightly noticed. If there are any three reliable sources, which satisfies ORGCRIT, there's a possibility of keeping it; otherwise, it's a straight-forward delete. Charlie (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any reference that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 11 June 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Cheetah Mobile. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobPartner

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

prnewswire sites, etc. not seeing notability here. may be a good reason to redirect to Cheetah Mobile 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and France. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the possible destination-redirect page Cheetah Mobile Inc 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mobile: per nomination, currently fails WP:NCORP. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources I find meet WP:ORGCRIT so the only ATD suitable would be a redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Polygnotus (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the reasons mentioned above. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited

AfDs for this article:

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

Formerly soft deleted per a rationale by User:TimothyBlue which I repeat verbatim:

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. Remsense诉 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please educate me about GNG and NCORP. Here i am only trying to cover details about a public company with available sources. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read WP:GNG (our general notability guideline), and WP:NCORP (the extended notability guidelines regarding corporations). Long story short, the subject does not appear to have substantial mention in reliable sources. Remsense诉 07:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Software. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:

Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.

The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaghrebiFalafel, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. You mentioned three sources. The MSN article is about a singer using the app - the article mentions the company in passing and does not provide any in-depth Independent Content about the company - fails CORPDEPTH. The Vanity Fair article is a "puff profile" on the founder and relies entirely on an interview. All the information is provided by the founder and has no Independent Content. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally the Avenue article has zero in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Are there any other sources you believe meets NCORP? If not, perhaps you might reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are: Larazon El Correo. They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future.~~ I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hypelist is definitely notable and has quite a few users. It's widely used by now and many other applications with similar notability levels are also on Wikipedia. Redcrablegs (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of people an app does guarantee notability. That's also a weasle statement: how many people are quite a few and who is providing these numbers? ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came back here to see what happened since my first comment. I noticed that the vote by Okmrman was deleted and they've now been blocked for being a sock puppet. On April 30 there was a comment on his talk page regarding spurious tagging of pages for speedy deletion. That was on April 30. This article was nominated for speedy deletion by a somewhat dormant account on May 9. The speedy was contested and 9 hours after this was nominated for deletion the sockpuppet voted here. Not that this affects the vote here one way or another. Sock puppet or not, doesn't impact whether a subject is notable or not, but the powers that be may wish to cast the Okmrman sock puppet net wider and investigate the editor who nominated this article for deletion. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @Yamla Looking at this some more, I'm now convinced that Teemu.cod and Okmrman are one and the same. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, they were blocked for disruptive editing and their other account was the puppet (they're the master). It is a little weird, has AfD always been this much of a sockfest? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It is peculiar. Then again, longer one spends here, harder it is to get shocked. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teemu.cod is Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People here saying the *company* is notable and then talking about the product are missing the point of establishing the notability of the *company*. None of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think one does, can you please post a link here and point out which page/para meets NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypelist's lead says "Hypelist is a mobile social application." The article is about the product (the app), not the company that launched the app. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertorial tone, and little or no depth to the coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. Can't believe this is still going. Not sure what's happening with AFD but this is a weird one. Nominated for deletion by editor who comes out of dormancy to nominate it and then hasn't edited since. Some editor who votes delete is blocked for going on a voting rampage. And then yesterday the discussion is closed not once, but twice by editors who are sock puppets?!?! Still this has nothing to do the merits of the page. Given that its been relisted twice and still no consensus, I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. It satsifies WP:GNG with the non English coverage and there is probably more non English coverage that can be translated and added. If it stays, Ill look for some and add it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now closed a third time by some rogue editor! It's not just this article. It's also others that are up for deletion. Anyone have any idea what is going on and why? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's an AFD closing LTA. Just revert, WP:DENY and move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 Wow! That's so bizarre. Why do they do it? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "'Hypelist', el nuevo proyecto del exitoso emprendedor español que triunfa en EE UU" ['Hypelist', the new project of the successful Spanish entrepreneur who triumphs in the US]. El Correo (in Spanish). 2024-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "For the second time, the young entrepreneur has managed to cover another need of social media consumers in time. His new app, 'Hypelist', was launched a few months ago and aims to help people share recommendations for activities, products or places they are passionate about. The app innovates by leaving the framework of aesthetics and superficiality that so characterises content on today's networks, something that places this second project at an extreme opposite to 'Unfold', focused precisely on the visual. ... 'Hypelist' allows you to collect all the recommendations in a personalized space for when they are going to be missed. In this way, it has been presented as an application not for entertainment, something that already abounds, but for self-realisation and growth that pushes people to fulfill all their plans. ... This time the launch of the project has been accompanied by the 'Hypelist Session', events organised to promote the use of the new app and full of 'influencers' eager to share their recommendations through this new channel."
2. Martin, Ruth (2024-03-26). "Esta es la Nueva App Que Usan Los Viajeros Expertos. Hypelist amenaza competir con Instagram y es perfecta para los que no pueden vivir sin las listas de favoritos" [This Is the New App That Expert Travelers Use. Hypelist threatens to compete with Instagram and is perfect for those who cannot live without favorites lists]. Grazia (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "Are you one of those who always makes lists for everything? Are you one of those who miss the guides that Instagram has made disappear and where you had your favorites saved? Then this new App is for you because with it you can organize, share and connect your best recommendations. It is called Hypelist and was created by a Spanish entrepreneur, Alfonso Cobo, who is not new to the world of entrepreneurship and technology. But not only can you create lists to save all your favorites, but you can also discover everything your favorite creators are obsessed with. Hypelist is the place where users share their true interests: the quirks that make them who they are; what truly obsesses and excites them"
3. Pujalví, Camila (2024-02-07). "Hypelist: la aplicación para compartir recomendaciones que necesitas en tu móvil" [Hypelist: the application to share recommendations that you need on your mobile]. La Razón (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "In the blink of an eye, Hypelist has gone from a simple app to a cultural phenomenon. Its creator, Alfonso Cobo, recognised for his previous hits like Unfold, has once again surprised the market with what promises to be the hit of the year 2024. But his ambition goes far beyond conventional. Following the wild launch of the app, Cobo has decided to expand its reach and create an entire universe around Hypelist. Hypelist stands out as a platform to organize, share and connect the best recommendations. Aiming to appeal to a younger audience, Cobo has collaborated with talented singer Cara Hart to release a single titled "Hypelist.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hypelist 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) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, Cunard I don't think Grazia can be considered an RS for anything other than uncontroversial self descriptions, certainly not for establishing notability. I mean, on their about page, which is very conveniently written in English, where most publications normally put how they're totally very well edited and all that, they instead put:

Our award-winning team prides ourselves on working with partners to create interesting, unexpected and unique experiences. Our collaborations are designed to deliver incremental value to our partners’ businesses. GRAZIA has a wide range of solutions to suit almost any kind of marketing and media mix. We offer branded content, video, integration into editorial franchises, innovative high impact ad units and local events.

... Yeah. I'll look at the other ones in a couple of minutes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe La Razón meets ORGDEPTH. I'm less sure about El Correo, but like risbel I am more concerned about ORGIND in their case (though El Correo might be better than risbel RS-wise generally). While I can't find anything other than the January press release, which those two articles seem to have additional content to (about the launch event, etc) they still read like content taken (perhaps paraphrased) from press kits rather than organic, intellectually independent coverage. Would rather kick it to RSN, though would not terribly object to this actually being closed as no consensus either. I would expect to renominate this (after some time of course) if that happens though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'm a bit concerned about is the language. It is clear that they are trying to sell Hypelist. It honestly sounds like a pitch to investors more specifically, they establish the credibility of the creator, describe demographics that it was made to appeal to, and describe the problem it is trying to solve. These are all pretty reasonable, but at the same time, the language is overly positive. Hart isn't just a singer, she's a talented singer. In Grazia, they describe the creator as well-trained, but they don't give any information in the quote. There are a lot more situations but their easy enough to parse through where I dont think I need to go over it more. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:45, 6 June 2024 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 27 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLAS-LP (Florida)

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

Zero secondary sources, lacking in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any WP:SIGCOV present for this radio station. The disambiguation here makes a redirect impractical. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the non-GNG-based looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2011, which at times seemed to be based more on existence (which is neither notability nor proof of same) than true notability, much less any verifiable information about anything beyond the license itself. Sourcing solely to FCC records and database entries (one of which is not even about this station…) is no longer considered acceptable — if there's no significant coverage, there should be no article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 12 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 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 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Largely a support studio rather than a primary one more likely to get coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 22 May 2024 (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. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P80 Air

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

Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this in NPP and debated taking it to AfD myself. Agree fully with the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Not necessarily promotional but does not satisfy WP:NCORP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not WP:TOOSOON if there are already independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject, and Thai business news media have been doing so with their own analyses of the family's business structure since 2022.[12][13][14][15] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources meets WP:SIRS
1. promotional from MarketingOops.com
2. name mention, no SIGCOV
3. Youtube promo video
4. Promo about founder, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
// Timothy :: talk 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ.
Marketingoops is an online magazine covering brands and advertising; the content in their articles is their original analysis. They do carry PR pieces, which are tagged "PR News" at the top, like these. The above piece is not one of them.

The Manager 360° business magazine article is about the airline business landscape, focusing on two emerging airlines—Really Cool Airlines and P80 Air—plus the established Bangkok Airways. So the subject is the focus of a third of the article, not a mere name mention.

The YouTube video is a news scoop by the online arm of Thansettakij, a major business newspaper, discussing how the airline fits into owners' businesses properties, and its announced business plans. It is not a promo video created by the subject.

The Thansettakij article has four paragraphs discussing the airline. Granted, it's not the main focus of the article, which is about the owners and their business group.
--Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, not yet independently covered or fully launched airlines. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This user was blocked a few hours ago with this rationale: "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry". Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Paul 012 (talk · contribs), whose detailed analysis shows that P80 Air meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the national newspaper Manager Daily, the major business newspaper Thansettakij [th], and the magazine Marketing Oops!. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with the statement below that these sources contain only "Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles". While there are quotes from company officials, these sources also contain original independent analysis about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Plenty of SIGCOV is likely to surface once the airline starts operating, which is expected within the six month draft lifespan. Nothing gained from deleting now and recreating a couple of months from now. @TimothyBlue: does this sound reasonable? Owen× ☎ 13:21, 26 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Global Solution

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria. The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Arkansas, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The PROMO actually doesn't seem too bad compared to some of the others, but there's no eligible sourcing. It's not really surprising the article would end up sounding like a press release if that's all that's available. (well, there's some short mention in WP:TRADES but doesn't seem like full articles even there) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well-written corporate self-promotional advertisement. Awards and clients section makes it even more of an advertisement. Website link takes the reader right to the business home page.— Maile (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2024 (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 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 14:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Composite Technologies

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

The companies only notable activity appears to be holding the rights to Quikkit Glass Goose for a short period before going into administration. Searching for them bring no useful results (note there is a separate but similarly named company in Malaysia), and sources about the Quikkit Glass Goose only mention them in passing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Pennsylvania. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unreferenced, scarcely even verifiable. This sort of article might have flied (no pun intended) back in 2005, but in 2024 it falls well short of our standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions

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

I'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is biased and running some personal vendetta. Hence, the page should be kept. I'm more than welcome to make any changes as deemed necessary. Aanuarif (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,

The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot see how the sources in the article meet WP:NCORP. I agree with the nominator that this has strong whiffs of UPE about it. Can anyone wishing to advocate for keeping the article please share the best three links that they believe have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Daniel (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with nom. Article style is highly promotional to make it look notable when it's actually not. Haruka Amaranth 14:08, 13 May 2024 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Hotel

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

Non-notable business/hotel. This former family-run hotel business doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. And the building from which it operated doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING. In terms of the business, in order to establish even the most basic facts about the subject, we are reliant on business registration records, classifieds in local newspapers, death records and funeral notices, small regional adverts, planning notices and the most trivial of passing mentions in wedding announcements. Each of a type that we would find (and likely, frankly, exceed) for just about ANY such business. Indicating that SIGCOV is not met. In terms of the building, while it (and some of the other neighbouring buildings) are subject to some recognition/protection, the building has not been the subject of "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" (as expected by WP:NBUILD). Or for "which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available" (as expected by WP:GEOFEAT). Even if the building were notable (and I don't see that it is), it is currently occupied by a franchise of a coffee chain. If the building were notable (and I do not see that it is), that notability wouldn't be "inherited" by any of the businesses operating within it (whether a small family hotel or a coffee chain franchisee or a short-lived sports shop or whatever). I do not see how a redirect (to Mullingar#Tourism or List of hotels in Ireland) or similar WP:ATD would be reasonable, proportional or appropriate... Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage found. ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a book that has one to two sentences about the hotel on each of several pages:
1. Illingworth, Ruth (2008). Images of Mullingar. Dublin: Nonsuch. The History Press. pp. 43, 49, 127, 176–177, 188. Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 43: "In the early 1950s, some Mullingar men went to Canada to mine uranium on the edges of the Arctic Circle. Those who returned to Ireland would later start local businesses such as The Yukon Bar and the Lake County Hotel with the money they earned in the mines."
  The book notes on page 49: "It was the era of the showbands and of disco, and Mullingar people could see and hear their favourite stars in venues such as the Lake County Hotel, the Horizon Ballroom, the County Hall and Larry Caffrey's singing lounge."
  The book notes on page 127: "Bands played weekly in venues such as the County Hall, the Lake County Hotel and The Lakeland (later Horizon) Ballroom."
  The book notes on pages 176–177: "Across the road from Shaw's (now Fagan's Office Supplies), is the Lake County Hotel, opened in 1962 by Paddy Fagan, who had made his money in Canada. The Lake County became one of Mulligan's top entertainment venues."
  The book notes on an image caption on page 188: "Fine Gael politicians in the Lake County Hotel in 196s. From left to right: Gerry LEstrange TD, James Dillon TD, Charlie Fagan, Sean McEoin, Liam Cosgrave TD." The book notes on another image caption on page 188: "Jack Lynch, then Taoiseach, in the Lake County Hotel in 1972 with proprietor Paddy Fagan and local Fianna Fáil councillors Joe Feely and Sean Keegan."
I am not seeing enough in my searches for sources to allow Lake County Hotel to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thorough nom, and with thanks to Cunard for the further check - indeed, none of those points gets it over the line either. This article is one of several on non-notable businesses of this type in that area, and at most the contents of all these together might make a short shared or list-y article. SeoR (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SideCho Records

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

I feel it would meet CSD, however, I've already PROD'it before, so I am going to do a full AfD. The company existed at one time. Maybe sources exist, but from what I can find, I am not finding adequate sourcing to meet company notability guidelines threshold, and as presented, I feel article actually meets "no indication of importance" based deletion Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's anything that would meet any of our SNGs or GNG. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am finding mentions that prove it existed, but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not keep GNG --Assirian cat (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Level Film

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

In short, fails WP:GNG and lacking of WP:RS. Source consists of WP:PRIMARY. The BBC source does not credit the production company. This, like many of those also listed via AfD, may have been created by WP:COI. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Companies, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and BEFORE showed mentions in subjects they are associated with but nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and TimothyBlue. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (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 keep‎. Reliable sources meeting SIGCOV were added; passes WP:ORGCRIT (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam

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

Sources available in the usual searches seem to be a mirror of what's already in the article, funding announcements, which are excluded under WP:ORGTRIV, and the product reviews on miscellaneous sites which do not have the requisite reputation for fact checking to be considered RS (Forbes Advisor and Investopedia both also fall under this latter category). Searches for קונקטים appear to be more or less the same (e.g. [16], [17]) though I just dumped it at the usual English language search engines, I'm not sure if there is a more comprehensive index for Hebrew language web sources outside GBY.

With these sources, it is not currently possible to write an article to our current standards (i.e. more than just a list of funding announcements) so unfortunately this company might not be suited for this encyclopedia. Perhaps it might be able to find its home on a more specialised or comprehensive publication or database, or back here at a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the basic media coverage contributes to the subject’s notability. Also, the famous and influential Israeli newspaper the Globes named the it as the most promising station in the country. Given the power of Israel tech and venture industry that is significantly in itself. Prhinohoursers (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom if not A7. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This company also seems unremarkable. Why should we have an article on them? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good reliable sources I've just found and added and the remaining ones. Also the company has quite noticeable/notable achievements, some industry impact and notability, demonstrated by the available references. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What. You can't possibly think a random self-published book is a reliable source. It's not even in Italian. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:SIGCOV. MeltPees (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've analyzed the page and found some good sources already there, including Forbes staff, Jerusalem Post, and Globes with in-depth coverage. Additionally, I took the responsibility to dig deeper and added several new trustworthy sources with extensive coverage from top business news media in the US and Israel. Among the Israel-based sources are Calcalist, Globes, The Marker, etc. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Added the lacking Review section for the software as it is usually used across other similar pages. Significant reviews from Business.com, TechRadar, US News, and Forbes were added - both with positive and negative details. The page covers both the company and the software comprehensively with reliable sources. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leverx

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

Unfortunately, aside from the usual announcements and sponsored articles (excluded under WP:ORGTRIV and ORGIND respectively), I was unable to find any relevant coverage. The topic may be more suitable in a more comprehensive publication or database. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Florida. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable subject for wikipedia --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong page vote, was not planned for here --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a consultancy operating in SAP integration, etc. The given references are announcement-based; as the nominator indicates, these fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for Leverx or Emerline. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Causey

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

This is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could maybe redirect to Enron scandal, maybe a section like § Trials. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not mentioned there. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are mentioned twice in that section, once in the first paragraph (last name only) and again in the fourth. I do take the point that it's hard to spot on a casual read though, I think it's the only reason I was hesitant about it in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was doing a ctrl-f on their full name. Just did a ctrl-f on their last name only. In that case I have no issue with a redirect to either Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall (first mention) or Enron scandal#Trials (second and third mention). TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suckapunch Records

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

Fails NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nebraska. Graywalls (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AUD. There's some coveranage from Lincoln, NE [18][19][20] but nothing else. Mach61 13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, two of those look like "what to do in town" listings as indicated by show hours and location and those can be used to fact check artist's background but they shouldn't count towards notability credit. Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as not-notable organization. WP:AUD point is also strong for Delete. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to List of software patents#Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientigo

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

Small patent troll that made a bit of an ephemeral stir 20 years ago when it tried to claim a patent on XML. Quickly sank back into obscurity. As a company it doesn't really do anything. 29 employees, 6 million revenue. No sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGCRIT tells us that sources for such companies must be presented with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Thus CORPDEPTH says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. No such sources exist. This is just a patent troll. Added a notability template in April to attempt to address the issues but this was summarily removed after a second report of the patent trolling was added (misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ based on coverage in CNET (note the second page) MIT Technology Review and eWeek. These are all NCORP-standard sources, giving extended coverage and analysis of Scientigo and the merits of their claims. ZDNet, although the source itself is short, even had a co-editor of XML (Tim Bray) briefly weigh in on the issue, which does show the trolling was considered a fairly big deal.

I think the complaint the company is just a patent troll and doesn't really do anything misses the point a little bit – the patent trolling is precisely what the company is notable for. I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary. The requirement is the company receives significant independent coverage in multiple sources; there's nothing about this coverage needing to take place over a prolonged period.

(misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020) 2005 is the publication date, 2020 is the archive date. – Teratix ₵ 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary—OK but the immediate next section is notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, so the question is, does SBST apply here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide deeper analysis, not mere description; they don't fall into the category of routine coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. I could see a reasonable argument this could be covered as part of a larger article (patent troll, XML or somewhere else), or that the article needs to be rewritten to be about the patent controversy rather than the company as such, but the nominator was pretty clear he doesn't think there are any sources providing deep and significant coverage on the topic and seeks deletion rather than any alternative. – Teratix ₵ 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of software patents § Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. A burst of coverage surrounding ridiculous claims spanning about two weeks is basically textbook SBST. We're not here to host articles on every single entity that attained 15 minutes of fame (or two weeks, as the case may be) because they announced something ridiculous for publicity, and just because it's not listed in WP:ORGTRIV doesn't mean it should be automatically accepted. I did find two WP:TRADES sources, but I don't think they overcome the presumption of non-independence. In fact, both of them — Econtent Magazine ("SourceWare: The Search Engine with Good Intentions", TWL ProQuest 213817847 and Equities Magazine (two articles, "Special Situations" and "The Secret of Scientigo", which were formerly both available online) — read as magazines publishing puff pieces. Willing to kick it to RSN though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable redirect/merger target, I'd support that. – Teratix ₵ 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that redirect too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per no notability provided. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of mentions in insider trade zines doe not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SendPulse

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP. When I began to shovel out the marketing, I noticed that the references were all press releases and passing mentions. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only significant independent coverage I could find was a product review in The Motley Fool: [21], and the jury seems to be out at WP:RSN on whether they're a reliable source. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, Advertising and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad masquerading as an article. For the Motley Fool article, I would say being unable to exclude that it's a paid article (Many or all of the products here are from our partners that compensate us.) would weigh against it, though does remind me I should probably bring up affiliate links at RSN at some point in the near future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. Creator blocked as such. MER-C 15:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. Nothing on the page or what I can find in a search show anything close to ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2024 (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. Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMVERT S.r.l.

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA WP:COI article about a company. Such coverage as can be found about the firm concerns the redesign that it commissioned from Studiometrico for its headquarters ([22], [23]), which work does not I think confer notability on the client. No current article on it.wiki: previous instances were deleted there. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2024 (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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delawana Inn

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. If kept, it would need TNTing for its tone and it has no sources. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tice, Janet; Wilford, Jane (2008) [1986]. 100 Best Family Resorts in North America: 100 Quality Resorts with Leisure Activities for Children and Adults (9 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Insiders' Guide. p. 244–247. ISBN 978-0-7627-4529-6. ISSN 1536-6170. Retrieved 2024-05-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides three pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The Delawana Inn Resort is situated just ninety minutes north of Toronto in Honey Harbour ... Resort guests have access to seven beaches. Tourists have been coming to this area since 1897, when Victoria House Hotel was built; the only access was by boat, and the fare was a whole 15 cents. In the 1920s it became the Delawana Inn, named after the legend of a local chief and expanded gradually over the years. Destroyed by fires in 1952 and 1973, it has been rebuilt to be even better. In 1996 it was sold to a Toronto development company, whose principals had vacationed there as children. Going into its third century with enthusiasm and dedication to families, it's easy to see why "The Del" has been voted Canada's "Top Summer Family Resort" in 2005 and 2006 and is a Gold Member of the City Parent Hall of Fame, having been chosen by readers for five of eleven years."
  The book notes: "Accommodations: The style throughout is classic Ontario lake resort, and the rooms are generally spacious and family-friendly, with a variety of bed types. Five types of accommodations span rooms to houses; Parkview, Lakeview, Edgewater, Suites, and Chalet have varied accommodations and styles within each group, and six houses are on-site."
2. Boyer, Barbaranne (1987). Tatley, Richard (ed.). Muskoka's Grand Hotels. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press. p. 174. ISBN 0-919783-74-0. Retrieved 2024-05-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Around 1920 the Victoria Hotel and the Georgian merged to become one facility, and the name was changed to Delawana Inn. Until 1960 the different properties were operated separately by the brothers and their families, then Didace Grise, son of Fred and grandson of Didace senior, was successful in consolidating all family holdings into one enterprise. The Delawana Inn, under Didace and his wife, Mary, soon became a household name and during the ensuing years enjoyed a loyal following of patrons. The Grises rebuilt the hotel after a fire destroyed it in 1952, but the Delawana soon became one of Muskoka's top hotels once more. However the family was put to the test again when another fire struck twenty-one years later, levelling the structure. In 1973-74 they again rebuilt, only this time a new "fireproof" hotel was erected on the site of the old one. ... Today the Delawana Inn is operated by brothers Peter and John Grise."
3. Loverseed, Helga (1993-10-06). "Delawana Inn's hominess popular with older travellers". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest 1143805881.
  The article notes: "The Delawana Inn on Honey Harbour, an inlet of Georgian Bay, is an anachronism in today's modern world. A plainly decorated, turn-of-the-century, resort run by third generation innkeepers, it is not part of a large hotel chain, nor has it fallen prey to the "upgrading" that has changed the face of so many of Ontario's old resorts. Self-respecting yuppies probably wouldn't set foot in the place it isn't nearly glitzy enough—but it's a favourite vacation venue for seniors, older "singles" and grandparents. ... The resort is popular with older travellers precisely because it's old-fashioned but also because there are lots of organized activities for children. Couples are able to go off and pursue their own interests, while the small-fry are being entertained. The adults fish, swim, hike on nearby Beausoleil Island or visit tourist attractions such as the Wye Marsh. ... The bedrooms are straight out of the 1960s. Decorated with chocolate-colored, wood panelled walls, orange shag carpeting and metal chairs covered with naugahide, they could hardly be classed as luxurious. They're large and comfy, but they would benefit from a coat of paint."
4. "A Summer Hotel". The Canadian Architect. No. 9. 1956-09-01. pp. 37–42. ISSN 0008-2872. ProQuest 1617887997.
  The article notes: "The Delawana Inn, a summer resort hotel in Honey Harbour, Ontario at the southern end of Georgian Bay, some one hundred-and-ten miles north of Toronto has been operating now for many years and is presently owned by the founder's son, Didace Grisé. In 1951, architect E. C. S. Cox of Islington, Ontario, was retained to design a large chalet to supplement the sleeping accommodation of Delawana Inn. This chalet was started in the fall of 1951 and completed in the spring of 1952. However, during the summer of 1952, the main hotel building, comprising the kitchens, dining room, public rooms and most of the sleeping accommodation was destroyed by fire. ... The site of the new main hotel building was to be that of the burned structure, a difficult area with outcroppings of solid rock at various levels and of which no surveys were available. In short, a typical Georgian Bay site, the ruggedness of which has long appealed to visitors from the more effete landscapes of Ohio, New York and Michigan."
5. "Resort of the Week: Delawana Inn". Toronto Star. 1998-06-27. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Delawana Inn, at Honey Harbour on Georgian Bay, has been the setting for family vacations for over 100 years. But where the trip north from Toronto to the inn once entailed a train to Penetang and then a steamboat, it's now an easy drive of about an hour and a half. But over the years and through all the additions and changes, including a recent major refurbishing of all guest accommodations, Delawana has remained a classic full-service resort where families feel welcomed ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Delawana Inn 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) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one other editor review these newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for its significant value to the history and economy of the region. Very rare and important place to countless people. Article needs some work, but is in progress, and this does not justify deletion. Spencerk (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's close, but based on the independent sources identified by @Cunard and clear historical significance of the building I think this should pass notability. Here's my assessment:

100 Best Family Resorts - it's significant coverage, but is it independent? Hard to tell but it has a lot of prices and terms & conditions which leads me to conclude it's largely based on PR materials, not independent
Mustoka's Grand Hotels - significant, ostensibly independent, lengthy, I think this counts as SIGCOV
Loverseed - I can't see the original. The quoted text is not super-long, but it looks like independent content, and I think it should count towards notability
Canadian Architect - I can't see the original article, but again is not long but clearly independent content, and I think it counts towards notability
Toronto star - no byline, seems to be reproducing PR materials, not independent

I'd add one more:

Mr. Grise went to Honey Harbor, where he acquired the old. Victoria House from Nickerson Bros., operating this resort for one year. The Royal was then built by Mr. Grise which has been operated since by the Grise Brothers, sons of the pioneer. The Royal has developed into a very popular summer resort at Honey Harbor. The Victoria is now the Delawana Inn, operated by George and Fred Grise. Osborne, George, A story of early Midland and her pioneers : a tribute to the days of old-to the pioneers who gave of their spirit and thought to the making of the beautiful and substantial Midland of to-day[24]

Oblivy (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Dale Vince. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Britain Group

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

Currently fails WP:CORP as none of the existing references constitute significant independent coverage of the company. Uhooep (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dale Vince and add a mention to the article there. It doesn't currently mention this or Ecojet, but I'm sure a sentence or two can be added mentioning both. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddingstone Distillery

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient significant independent coverage. Uhooep (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. There are zero reliable sources. If you find two good sources, ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2024 (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 merge‎ to Sydney Talker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Records

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

Currently fails WP:GNG and do not qualify for a standalone entry under any music related SNG. WP:ATD-R would be the best option and the target should be the founder’s article, Sydney Talker. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious merge target to the founder, so I'm not sure why it's at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, straightforward NCORP failure. Mach61 14:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, sound reasoning, but the WP:ANYBIO of the target subject is a little shaky. Graywalls (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to parent article. The label isn't notable and has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) seems fine. Doesn't seem controversial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlab

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

Quick check finds no significant coverage on the company that passes WP:ORGIND. A record label is a business/company, therefore it's expected to pass NCORP for it to kept. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I hate to say it because I'm a fan of some of their artists, but I can't find anything other than sites selling records and completely unrelated hits for a Matlab package. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above TheWikiToby (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2024 (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 merge‎ to East Midlands Railway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.

Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. Dank Jae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - EMR Connect has also been created, are they both in a similar situation? As they're both sub-brands, seems odd to delete one and allow another. Dank Jae 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot I created that, having been sat around for ~10 weeks waiting to be accepted/declined. The reviewer (please do not tag) seems not to understand that EMR Connect is a subbrand of East Midlands Railway and the fact that EMR Regional is under discussion. I would have expected a decline stating that this should be placed in the main EMR article instead for these two reasons.

Also, not sure why Great Northern ended up, along with Island Line (brand), being the subbrands of Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway respectively. (This may not be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey). JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill, the Island Line and GN have more history of its own to be separate, should these EMR brands have more developments distinct from EMR then they can have articles in the future. But right now they're just service timetables. The EMR brands are very recent, and their articles aren't developed enough to prove they're independently notable right now. Of course, you or another editor could have another go should there be more information in the future if these brands become more distinct and/or the EMR article gets too long. Dank Jae 21:56, 21 May 2024 (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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Holdings

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 6 of the 11 references are non-rs and routine business news scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've gone ahead to add several WP:RS/WP:INDEPENDENT references from Bloomberg, Reuters, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

I've also added segments that reference news coverage on some prolonged controversy and lawsuits involving other companies to meet substantial coverage requirements as per WP:ORGDEPTH, and how the firm has first-ever approval to operate a derivatives exchange for digital assets in the US.

Keep. With these changes, a majority of the 22 references should be WP:RS with several intended to meet WP:N/WP:SIGCOV requirements that are not routine business events or have significance at regulatory level that has implications to national WP:AUD, e.g. IPO, lawsuits from or against other major international corporations, provision of a major financial index.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage, including Bloomberg 1, Bloomberg 2, Bloomberg 3, WSJ, and S&PGMI. With these, it passes WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. (Editors should be sure the numerous press releases cited on the page are not supporting contentious material, though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is also this reference. I would also consider changing the page name to Miami International Securities Exchange since its the exchange that seems to get most of the coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. It's not a bad idea but I'd like to explain my reasoning. I had considered writing the initial article on Miami International Securities Exchange ("MIAX Options Exchange"), the original options exchange under MIH, however I ruled against it because:
- MIAX Pearl Equities, Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Bermuda Stock Exchange, LedgerX, and the three other MIAX Exchange Group exchanges likely meet GNG and often require redirects to the parent company, which the MIAX Options Exchange is not.
- There are 3, soon 4, MIAX options exchanges of nearly equal notability and coverage these days, and people usually think of them as a single unit, just as they think of BZX/BYX/EDGA/EDGX as one under Cboe Global Markets.
- Exchanges often become antiquated and their names change frequently and this causes many editorial mistakes on WP. See for instance NYSE Arca and NYSE Euronext. It's more likely that the holding company MIH will outlive all of its subsidiary exchanges.
I would instead suggest either (a) a stub for MIAX Exchange Group to encompass everything else or (b) changing the page name for MIAX Pearl Equities to MIAX Exchange Group instead. Cara Wellington (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the other pages. Pinging @Scope creep: for an opinion as they did the BEFORE. Wondering if it should be merged into one of the exchanges already listed in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share @Dclemens1971's position in Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities). There is enough coverage to separate parent company from several of its MIAX Exchange group of subsidiaries, just like there is enough coverage for Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Merging the two would be difficult due to coverage and content differences. Cara Wellington (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling this over from the Pearl Equities discussion, I also wish to point out that there's a long history of precedence on how these have been handled once the subsidiary exchange has reached WP:GNG, even for exchanges that have shown lesser depth of independent references than MIAX Pearl Equities has demonstrated. For example, but not limited to:

Exchanges frequently change ownership and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream to their parent even after they've established any level of content independence.

That's why I strongly recommend a Keep over a merge. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it details the significant impact of the company on the financial markets, including the operation of multiple exchanges such as MIAX Options, which influence trading and market stability. Additionally, the company's innovative contributions to trading technology and its role in expanding the financial infrastructure warrant its inclusion as a notable subject on Wikipedia. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Scope creep can withdraw their nomination to end this more quickly? I note that they had already done that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities which was nominated at the same time and for similar reasons, and further they seem to have been satisfied after this revision.

Maybe you can assist with me with what I was looking for above. Can you point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? References for this particular entity, not the others.

Look at the sources I linked in my 6 May post above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dclemens1971. Cara Wellington (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [25] [26], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a ~~weakest keep~~. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 23 May 2024 (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 keep‎. Thank you, GMH Melbourne, for the thorough source analysis. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chargrill Charlie's

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Noting the company’s website is a primary source and not independent. Previous PROD removed by anon IP, possible WP:SOCKPUPPET, without addressing the issue of notability. The article’s creator is currently blocked for disrupting other articles. Anon IP is potentially working around current block. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the issues raised in the nom are not themselves justification for deleting the article. The current sourcing is poor but I have been able to find quite a bit of decent coverage such as this from the Financial Review, Mosman Living, Hospitality magazine, and the Sydney Morning Herald. This was from a fairly quick search. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The article needs improving but a Google search found a number of sources that can contribute towards establishing notability under WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conducted a BEFORE and found some useful sources. X (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAG Asia Capital. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references rely entirely on information from the execs or the company. The references included above are thinly disguised promos or regurgitated company announcements or PR - I mean the articles in hospitality magazine (almost entirely consiste of quotes from company exec) and Goodfood (7 sentences, 2 of which are direct quotes) both use the same (PR supplied) pic even though they're written 3 years apart and neither of them come anywhere close to meeting ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the references come close and I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented in this AfD would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Count source toward GNG?
https://chargrillcharlies.com/about-us		✘ No
https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/chargrill-charlie-s-acquired-by-owner-of-red-rooster--oporto.html		? Unknown
https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/from-one-chicken-shop-to-a-private-equity-buyout-20230509-p5d6vb	(not in article)	✔ Yes
https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/achieving-sustainable-growth-slow-steady-expansion/	(not in article)	? Unknown
https://mosmanliving.com.au/chargrill-charlies-is-on-the-move/	(not in article)	? Unknown
https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/chargrill-charlies-expands-across-sydneys-eastern-suburbs-20200731-h1ppoi.html	(not in article)	✔ Yes
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/event/free-chicken-chargrill-charlies	(not in article)	✔ Yes
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/more-chicks-for-justin-bieber-in-sydney-and-this-time-hes-eating-em/news-story/a00718e1e33d00d58b7895bbe6415594	(not in article)	✔ Yes
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/dataroom/craveable-brands-sale-cooking-after-pag-buys-chargrill-charlies/news-story/cb9cb29ab2eec4c7561e91d9ad491440	(not in article)	✔ Yes
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/push-to-get-chargrill-charlies-infamous-black-vip-card-extended-to-punters-not-just-vip/news-story/9bf04192df1beaa3e1371671c73f14d2	(not in article)	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 2024 (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 no consensus‎. This has already been relisted twice. Editors have weighed in with comments but not !votes. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Canada

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

The subsidiary doesn't seem notable. This page can be a redirect to Securian Financial Group. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here [27] and here [28]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I've dug into it a bit over my morning coffee, it looks like maybe we're confusing two entities. What I can find here is Securian Canada used to be Canadian Premier Life, not JC Penney or Aegon. I did find this: https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ which has a same parent company that was purchased but they look like two separate entities in that deal. Maybe still worth referencing. Brendanphilp (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think given the above additional, that it's worthy of its own listing compared to rolled up into US parent. If it makes sense to add the https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ article to help add some context about these acquisitions, I think that would be helpful.

I haven't personally been able to find external sources to validate the JC Penney part of the discussion or their "business practices" Oaktree b referenced but if someone finds something, happy to include as well.

Let me know your thoughts! Brendanphilp (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 10 May 2024 (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 no consensus‎. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([29][30][31][32]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[33] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO

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

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that works too, but it's a bit moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 11:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITYpeek

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Passing mentions in local sources only. – Teratix ₵ 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither in the cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any substantial coverage in independent sources. JBW (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For an article to meet WP:BASICS, it needs to have a strong context supported with reliable sources per WP:RS or then, we aren't arguing. GNG must be met before looking at WP:NCORP, an adittional criteria for various SNGs. The product isn't notable. Pls delete! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:57, 18 May 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENAPU

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Article on a small company formed in 1970 with just "it exists" type info. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Chile, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I am currently unable to review this nomination individually, but in the event that the deadline passes before I am able to do so, I would like to request that the page be redirected to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru as a section which includes enough coverage of this and similar entities can be created. AlejandroFC (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best I can find are company listings and PR items on this site [34], none of which help notability. I don't find coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing in the Spanish wiki article is a government website and a history of marine transport in Peru, but that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1]^[2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (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 no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.
  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."
  The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."
2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.
  The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."
3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.
  The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."
4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.
  The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.
  The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.
  "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.
  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."
2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.
  The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You said:

Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT

I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, Teratix (talk · contribs)! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (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.

Companies proposed deletions

[1] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[4] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[5] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Companies deletion==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AC_Ventures_(company)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBX Music}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant CZ}}