Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:49, 20 May 2022

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën India

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

Could have been a redirect to the parent company but non-notable on their own. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Created by a potential WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does not become less notable if the concerning article was created by an SPA. If Ford India can have article then why not this? I will be checking for sources soon. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently notable, having received coverage in multiple reliable sources for several years.[1][2][3][4][5] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References in the article are routine launch/corporate announcements or insubstantial news which do not rise above the WP:NCORP bar. The links dumped above are also similar. Hemantha (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per this recent source, as well as some sources already cited above, also little absurd to delete a page from top 10 car manufacturer activity in India Shrikanthv (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Citroen is part of the Stellantis Group, I cannot identify any information in that article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Every single sentence in it is attributed to company insiders and is full of buzzwords that mean nothing. I suggest a re-read of NCORP if you consider that to meet it. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 5 June 2022 (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. The source analysis has been very compelling and addresses the relevant policy NCORP and the keep votes are either assertions, not based on policy, reflecting the wromg policy GNG or, in the case of the single vote providing sources, successfully challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G-Aerosports

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

I removed the speedy tag because there is a claim that new information has come up from the original deletion over four years ago. It still looks to me like there could be a WP:COI and the subject may not meet WP:GNG or another notability guideline. I'm unconvinced that the sources are independent and enough to meet the notability standards. I believe the article should be deleted but let's have a discussion first. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The sources, listed as "External links/References", are a few photos, a couple of YT videos and an e-book written by (as it appears) the user who created the article (this is an indication of COI, too; please, note that yesterday the same user created the Greek WP article as well). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate manufacturer, which, in the meanwhile, has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada - definately incrasing its notability. Please do note that there are hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia - there are even articles for makers of a single test sporting aircraft or a single vehicle. I see no reson why such articles should be deleted.Skartsis (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skartsis "Legitimate manufacturer" has nothing to do with notability; it could have been illegal and notable. The "hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia" is an argument to avoid: the existence of other articles that their subject may lack notability doesn't justify keeping this article. To me the creation of this article by you looks like a product of WP:COI, it has to do with listing you e-book as a source. I might be wrong, but that was the first thing that crossed my mind when you created the Greek article (now deleted). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skartsis Also, if notability is met there's still the potential WP:COI issues that would be reason for removal of the article. I applaud your enthusiasm--do you have anything for us to consider about WP:COI?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19 and Paul McDonald I removed reference to my book (this was added only to provide additional reference, makes no difference to me - you may have seen that now it is an open access eBook on Academia). Also, I personally asked the manufacturer (through the e-mail in its website) to provide written permission for the images, as demanded by an editor. Was this that lead to the claim of "suspected connection"? You may as well delete the article, if you still believe so. Of course, I will repeat that this approach could lead to the deletion of a big part of Wikipedia. Regarding similar makers, random examples are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzavia_GAK-22_Dino (a single ultralight aircraft made) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_EDA_100_Flamingo (incomplete development of an ultralight aircraft). I will not argue further, and respect any decision. Skartsis (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I just added six new RS, including one from a reliable Spanish aviation magazine, one from HuffPo.gr, and another from newsbomb.gr. Now the citations are 10. Ten citations are a lot of citations. What's more, the coverage is persistent and spans from 2011 up to 2022, indicating lasting notability. This company has created a stealth kit aeroplane which is quite popular and notable. One of its founders is a retired policeman with no aviation experience. I will try to expand the article whenever I get some time. This is a very interesting and notable company. I will close by noting that Mr. Skartsis has no COI. His book is freely available online. He doesn't stand to profit from this endeavour. In fact, Mr. Skartsis has resuscitated the knowledge base of the old industrial base of Greece by creating articles on en.wiki. His multitude of Greek automobile and industrial articles on en.wiki is a testament to his extensive knowledge, experience, and dedication. I know that, due to cultural bias, Greek manufacturers are not particularly known in North America. I am pleased that, at least, the article was not CSD'ed. That would be too much cultural bias. Dr. K. 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K. At least many of the new references added are not from relable sources (ellines.com, ipop.gr, newsbomb.gr). The coverage on the subject looks like just a reproduction of the point of view of the company, based on YT viedos, company statements etc. For example, presenting this aircraft as the "Greek Stealth bomber fighter" (huffingtonpost.gr), is just ridiculous in my opinion. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think all 11 sources are reliable. In particular, non-trivial coverage in the Macedonia newspaper, Flyer magazine, Flying magazine, iefimerida.gr, etc., is indicative of the notability of the subject. HuffPo, newsbeast are also very reliable,. despite your objections. Same goes for the Spanish aviation magazine etc. Even if we subtract the sources you think are unreliable, there are more than enough remaining sources to establish the notability of this article, a fact you seem to de facto recognise, since you didn't say all the sources are unreliable. In any case, I get your POV, I think it is faulty, and I do not wish to continue arguing with you, especially since you seem eager to cause this notable article to be deleted using faulty arguments. You put this article for speedy deletion without doing any due diligence. If you had done so you would have discovered the reliable sources that myself and Mr. Skartsis found and you would not have put this article up for speedy deletion. Thankfully, you were overruled by an admin, Paul McDonald, and there is now a good chance that the article will be saved. Since you have a userbox at your userpage that you participate in AfD discussions, I advise you in future to be more careful when you tag articles for CSD. Also thankfully, we live in a wiki. Other knowledgeable users will undoubtedly chime in, so we don't need to continue this back and forth between us. Finally, you do not need to ping me. First, I find pinging annoying. Second, I have the page watchlisted and, if I wish, I respond. Dr. K. 09:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't understand why a simple article about an existing, legitimate company with so many references to it, has caused so heated arguments regarding its deletion. It is my turn to wonder why. At some point it even looked like not being familiar with all aspects of Wikepedia, which has tons of articles about individual vehicles or aircraft (even if a single copy was built) - fully corresponding to its spirit and mission. The entire, or most of the Category "Ultralight Aircraft", as well as many other entire Categories, should be deleted according to some of the arguments I read.Skartsis (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K. Flyer magazine [6] follows the same pattern as the sources I mentioned: just a reproduction of the company claims based on (a promotional ?) video ("The single-seater, again based on the video, lifts off slowly and needs little room to get back on the ground, all the better for making believe you’re ending the mission by catching the wire. For more info, check out the company’s site, www.aerosports.gr"). Furthermore, the subject of the added sources is a specific model, not the company as a whole. Don't see any really independent coverage on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are selectively cherry picking sources while ignoring the rest of the WP:RS that exist in the article. Read my previous response. The RS currently in the article do not cover the Archon Stealth kit only. They cover the designer and his history as well. You can benefit by reading them. Also, as I mentioned before, do not ping me. It is annoying. Dr. K. 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my issue is that I'm not convinced that WP:COI and WP:GNG thresholds are met. I'm not convinced because the sources are in a non-English language on an English encyclopedia. I'm more than willing to be wrong here--maybe it DOES meet those thresholds and I'm just not able to confirm. But to me, if the supporting sources aren't in the language of the encyclopedia, that points to trying another wiki that has alignment with the language.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more English language source, and a link to the website of G-Aerosports U.S. Dealer (referring to the Canadian manufacturer that will produce one of its products under license for the North American market). Not notable??...In my eyes, so many sources and such documentation for such a subject, look almost ridiculous... I had said that I would not argue further, but I am puzzled by some of the arguments. It isn't about anybody's promotion (such articles are visited by 1-2 viewers a day, at best). It is about formal inclusion of a decent manufacturer in English WP's database, in exactly the same way so many (similar) others are included - and keep being added. If we favor (for whichever reason) deletion of an article, arguments can always be found.Skartsis (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) WP:TRYANOTHER nowhere mentions that a source must be in the English laguage to be acceptable and, in the absence of an English source, an article must move to the language of these sources. This is a stark misinterpretation of TRYANOTHER. WP:RS does not exclude reliable sources in other languages either. In fact, foreign language sources are widely used in Wikipedia articles all the time, and, sometimes, exclusively. If you don't believe me, ask WP:RSN about that. As far as COI, Mr. Skartsis has removed his book from the article. I don't see any vestiges of COI on his part. Dr. K. 15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about trying another wiki are about finding the best home for the information. No, it doesn't talk about languages and such. It's not a policy or guideline, simply an essay of ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the age of Google translate, I don't think foreign sources are such a challenge any longer. Thank you for the clarification. Dr. K. 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company as follows:

This from makthes.gr relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
Leaving aside any discussion on whether this from ellines.com is a reliable source, it also relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from ipop.gr is remarkably similar to the makthes.gr reference above and also relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
This from transponder1200.com describes one of the planes and does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This HuffPost reference repeats parts of an interview from another article and has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from newsbomb.gr repeats information from another article on one of the aircraft from a blog (blogs fail WP:RS) and provides no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from flyinmag.com comments on a video of one of the aircraft, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from flyer.co.uk repeats information about the same aircraft as the other refs above, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from all-aero.com fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from SIA Magazine also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from iefimerida.gr also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Finally, this from makthes.gr relies on an interview, has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH

There is possibly a case for an article about the Archon aircraft itself but the topic company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have said, the whole issue is about the "right" of a given company to be included in Wikipedia's database (which, through endless categories, tries to include even very small manufacturers). I have added yet one more reference. I suggest we all wait until the JULY 2022 OSHKOSH AIR SHOW, where a company model (Archon SF/1) will be presented, and see whether there is adequate publicity and reference.Skartsis (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is clearly notable, having produced some remarkable aircraft on very limited resources. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources also. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (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 02:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Roll

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. I can only use Google translate, but the only plausible source cited appears to be a promotional blog at a glance. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Japan, and Mexico. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NCORP, existing content is extremely poorly sourced, and I could not find additional reliable sources online. Toadspike (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If was notable I'd expect to find references that meet WP:NCORP's criteria - but I haven't been able to find any. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 25 May 2022 (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 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Ayurveda

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

Non-notable promo brand page. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional article. No substantive notability. As per nom, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Whiteguru (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and refbombed. I found a couple of half-decent sources, but they're not enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. M4DU7 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2022 (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 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dutch Drinks

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

There are references here, but per WP:CORP - quantity does not determine significance - the depth of coverage is fairly passing and routine for this small company. The article itself also lacks depth. Uhooep (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (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) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (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. --evrik ^(talk) 16:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Transmission

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

Completely unsourced and unnotable factory. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few hits in the Baltimore Sun about the plant closing. Seems to have been notable at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a bit of SIGCOV:^[1]^[2]^[3] This plant had closed in 2019 though the article had not seen a single edit between 2015 and the AfD nomination. I'm working on a rescue of this page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It now has 11 substantial references—that should clobber GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Thomas, Ken (October 31, 2007). "GM plant in Md. produces hybrid transmission systems". The Star-Democrat. Easton, Maryland. Associated Press. p. A10. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Walker, Andrea K. (April 24, 2009). "GM shutdown: White Marsh transmission plant to close 4–8 weeks". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 16. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Apperson, Jay (May 20, 1999). "GM plant planned in Balto. Co.: Truck transmissions would be built near White Marsh Mall". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 1A, 8A. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Comment This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".

"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references provided by Sammi Brie appear to be anything other than regurgitated company announcements or press releases. For example, the reference from the Star is a copy of this Vindactor article published the previous day and which is a Press Release. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun reference is similar to a number of other references (e.g. this published a day earlier) and is also based on a company announcement and information provided during a phone call with GM's CEO. Finally the last Baltimore Sun reference has no in-depth information on the company, it is an article based on information provided by "sources" and "company officials" pre-announcing the upcoming expected announcement that the factory would be built - fails CORPDEPTH and probably ORGIND. I've done a search myself and there are a lot of references but none meet CORPDEPTH so far. Right now I'm on a Delete but perhaps someone (or me) will turn up some references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be about a building, not a for-profit corporation; WP:NCORP is not the relevant notability guideline. I wholeheartedly agree with Sammi Brie that this is a clear WP:GNG pass based upon the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Likewise, this passes WP:NBUILDING, since significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources is well-established. The article passes the relevant notability guidelines and the nominator's statement that the article is wholly unsourced is no longer true given subsequent edits to the article. There is no persuasive policy-based reason to delete the article, while there are policy-based reasons to keep it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per WP:HEY which demonstrated that WP:GNG is met. Flibirigit (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zerodha

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any. Existing references are either repeats of company announcements/information or articles that rely entirely on quotes/interviews with no "Independent Content" or mentions-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. It's a WP:CHURN + WP:ADMASQ case. - Hatchens (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not exercise non-admin closure rights on this AfD discussion as someone did last time. Instead, allow it to run its course and leave the decision to an administrator. It's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This vote is going to be iconic considering current environment but Zerodha has plenty of independent in-depth discussion. There is a complete case study [7] on their success published by Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and then several more books talking about their journey [8]. They definitely have some PR agency churning coverage but beyond that, there are many good sources that contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "case study" was written as an exercise by students attending the Indian Institute of Management. While WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for scholarly references, this one falls short and in my opinion fails as a RS. As for the rest - see WP:GHITS. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprised to see this at AFD again. In addition to the four sources I had posted at the previous AFD discussion, here's four more: [9] [10] [11] [12]. A retail company operating at such scale almost always receives WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, though older sources may be harder to dig up due to the way Google's algorithms work. M4DU7 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those four references are not indpendent, in-depth nor significant. The bloomberg is paid advertisement, the 3 and 4ths are a primary and not independent of the subject, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and 1st reference is of a similar quality failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and is a pure WP:ADMASQ article, based upon very strange referencing indeed. Twenty eight references for a nine paragraph article is WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete based on a preliminary review. An article should speak for itself and should explain, without the need for the reader to check the references, how the subject is notable, in particular, how the company satisfies corporate notability. Corporate notability is based on what third parties have written, not on what the company says about itself. This article is about what the company says about itself. This does not mean that the company is not notable, or that the company is notable. It does mean that this article does not establish notability. I have not checked the references, but the article has been reference-bombed and I should not be expected to check the references. Robert McClenon ([[User talk:Robert McCl
Delete this is an advertisement. It contains a list of services (which happen to be the services any brokerage firm offers as a matter of course), it discusses their fee structure (all brokerage firms have fee structure), it states some of the companies it has invested in (as do all such firms). It lists a variety of trivial awards, awards designed so a company will get one in its turn; it lists a reference to an academic analysis which HighKing has nicely explained as a student project. The news items about it are of various occasions of computer down time. This is the most trivia and ephemeral news imaginable: all we sites (includding WP) have them, and they are of interest only until they get fixed. The defense of the article by Nomadicghumakkad refers to " several more books talking about their journey" This is the most obvious form of corporate jargon, and an argument using such terms indicate the inability to tell articles from spam.

There is however , a suitable place for this content, jargon and all: the company web site. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of citation spamming and some use of self-published sources coming from the company, but my quick review also shows that article has a strongly promotional tone. Based on that conclusion its enough for me to consider this article as an advertisement. Mario Jump 83! 07:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scope creep How is the Bloomberg article an advertisement? I see that Marcus Wright and Michael Patterson are mentioned as the editors, and Rahul Satija the Mumbai reporter. It also mentions that it received inputs from Pei Yi Mak. All are/were Bloomberg editors/reporters. The India Today article is authored by Shwweta Punj, senior editor at India Today. The Business Standard article carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary and that one is researched and written by Jyotindra Dubey who is now an associate editor at Economic Times. All three satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I can see how that Forbes India article (and Forbes India in general) can be seen as unreliable. There are four more in-depth sources which I had posted at the previous AFD, all independently-written by staff/editors. The Ken also has detailed analysis of the company with articles like [13] [14]. M4DU7 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free workaround in case you are hit by a paywall, read the Bloomberg article on BNN Bloomberg and the Business Standard article using a Google AMP link (works on mobile). M4DU7 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the workarounds. The Bloomberg reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and people associated with the company. Where's the in-depth "Independent Content" which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? The only content which might arguably be "clearly attributable" to a source unaffiliated with the topic company is towards the end, with the paragraph starting with "Zerodha's continued success is far from guaranteed" but those last 7 sentences do not provide any in-depth information. I'd call this a puff profile and PR. The India Today article attracts the exact same criticism - where's the in-depth "Independent Content"? It is another puff profile. If you are starting to get used to seeing the characteristics of puff profiles, then you won't need to be told that The Business Insider is also a puff profile. You say it "carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary" - that's hard to swallow considering that practically every paragraph references a claim or announcement made by the company or contains a quote. They're not "Independent" enough to meet WP:ORGIND and what's left fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely hard to agree with your claim that editors from different parts of the world at Bloomberg News, which is seen as one of the most reliable sources at WP:RSP, are indulged in promotionalism. The only paragraphs with claims attributed to the company on that article are 4th, 8th, 14th and the last one. The Business Standard article is indeed independently authored, and one of the best sources on this company. Just because it carries a bunch of quotes from the company, we cannot disregard all the independent research on that article.

The phenomenon of admiration of stories of entrepreneurs, businesses, artists, sportspeople, etc, and disruption/success stories in general is very common across the media industry in the Indian subcontinent. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all these articles are sponsored "puff pieces". As someone from India, I see this on a daily basis even in print newspapers and on TV channels. We need to evaluate and assess the sources on a case-by-case basis. Generally, articles written by reputed editors and carrying independent commentary satisfy SIRS and ORGIND, unless there is evidence of material republished from a press release or there is unambiguous promotion of the product. Your definition of "puff piece" fits those articles that do not mention the editor's name and simply say bureau, newsdesk, agencies, PTI, etc. If we continue to discount editorial pieces that use an appreciative tone, we'll end up deleting a majority of articles on notable Indian companies based on the incorrect assumption that all media houses and journos in the country are on the company's payroll. M4DU7 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M4DU7 Bloomberg aggregates news. Bloomberg also aggregates PR pieces. You need to learn to tell the difference. It's not hard. You are arguing very strongly to keep an article with poor references and poor notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per HighKing's analysis of the sourcing. Much churn and promotion, not a lot of fire for the smoke. Rockphed (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcase

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

There was a relatively recent AfD in which several socks participated and have been blocked - see WP:Articles for deletion/Smallcase. Notwithstanding the concerns over COI editing in general, the topic fails our notability criteria. None of the references discussed at the previous AfD meet WP:NCORP and none have been provided or found since. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mint appears to be non-reliable, TechCrunch can only be used to verify they exist, as it's a non-reliable source. Rest appear to be blogs or advertorials. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. I tried to rewrite this entity's page into survival state (duly assisted by Timtrent). But, not confident with the outcome. As one of the alternatives to deletion, merging it with Zerodha could be explored as per WP:ATD-M. Again... it depends on the general consensus derived from this discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to something that confirms this company is owned by Zerodha? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing there are few cues pointing towards it - 1, and 2. But, here's the catch... there is always a difference between "getting an investment" and "being backed". So, the confirmation is based on one's interpretation. Since, it's a company AfD discussion and you're an expert in this domain... I'll stick to your "final call". - Hatchens (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. Getting an investment is pretty much the same as "being backed" and neither mean that the investors/backers are the owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing, then it's a delete. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite Hatchens's valiant attempt to edit this to show it passes WP:NCORP, and despite my own WP:BEFORE I find it fails NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and also the subjective criteria. Nothing worth discussion. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote at the previous AFD discussion. M4DU7 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, as I cannot find enough independent coverage that makes this significant. Mario Jump 83! 08:36, 23 May 2022 (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!} 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford-Montgomery Labs

AfDs for this article:

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

2008 no consensus, where closer acknowledged it was an A7 candidate. While it subsequently made the news for allegedly re-neging on sponsorship agreement, there is zero evidence of notability for the company or its product. Star Mississippi 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and Georgia (U.S. state). Star Mississippi 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to those still active from the prior AfD: @DGG, Fabrictramp, and Frank: Star Mississippi 16:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability was not established before, and the company is now defunct, seemingly having never achieved notability in the first place. Frank | talk 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 2 June 2022 (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 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari's Fresh

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

There is some coverage about their possible acquisition and opening of new locations, but no coverage that approaches the level required for corporate notability. Star Mississippi 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 13:42, 14 May 2022 (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 03:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CLAP (company)

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

None of the references provided discuss the subject in any kind of depth-- all are passing mentions. Was not able to find significant coverage in published reliable indepdendent sources. Existence does not equal notability. If sources exist in Japanese, then they need to be demonstrated. A loose necktie (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 19:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP with the present set of references. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV too. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fails WP:NCORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2022 (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 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoola

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

non notable , the company don't have good references AlexandruAAlu (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In-depth coverage Business Insider,CNBC, and Digiday. Not a great deal of sources to work with, however. I've taken a stab at removing irrelevant content and adding tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.95 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. You should take a read of the WP:ORGIND section and the bit about "Independent Content". None of these references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Business Insider reference is really a profile of one of the topic company's clients, with a small amount of information and quotes provided by the CEO of the topic company. There is no in-depth information about the company and no "Independent Content", fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The CNBC reference relies entirely on an Squawk Box interview and other quotes from the CEO, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Finally, this Digiday reference profiles a client first and then relies entirely no information provided by the CEO and the company, also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the topic is a company, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail and the information must be provided by a source unaffiliated with the company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. CORPDEPTH requires in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) ORGIND requires "Independent Content".

"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - articles that simply regurgitate quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews and basic information and descriptions fail ORGIND.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft. Sources currently in the article do not support encyclopedic notability. It is possible such sources could be found or could develop, but the article as it stands does not meet the sctrictures of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:54, 29 May 2022 (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 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HTI Group

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

Not notable apart from its subsidiaries. A quick Google search does not seem to indicate the significant media coverage needed for notability. Additionally, this whole page looks almost like a company webpage and thus promotional. It's been polluted by paid editors in the past. Firestar464 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 May 2022 (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 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers

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

I am unable to find evidence of this charity's notability, nor can I identify a viable AtD Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage per WP:GNG. Significant organisation in the British teacher education sector. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to find independent in-depth sources about this organisation. The Banner talk 17:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 2 June 2022 (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 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery

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

Survived PROD by an editor later discovered to be a sock. Could have been deleted as a copyright violation, but that's been cleaned up so we're here. (Note: if it's kept, it will need major RevDel) I am unable to find independent, reliable source based coverage of the association beyond confirmation that it exists. Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 2 June 2022 (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!} 23:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamhuri Wear

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

This one doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. MySpace sources aside, I could not not find any mentions of this company online other than a few directories or scraper sites. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Approximately zero coverage indicates lack of notability. Mahdiar86 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although some promotional language was trimmed, this article's current state is similar to that 13 years ago when concerns about its promotional nature and under-referencing were tagged. Searches find a 2015 interview with the founder but that is insufficient, nor is notability is inherited from individuals who may have been seen wearing a t-shirt; I am not seeing evidence that the company meets the current WP:NCORP notability standards. AllyD (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (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!} 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TE Data

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

I am unable to find evidence of notability for this company. It exists, and the Arabic article isn't any better sourced. Could stub the promotional content but cannot find anything on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Egypt, and Middle East. Star Mississippi 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not realising WP:CORPDEPTH. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: The Telecom Egypt page indicates that "TE Data" had a prior existence as "GegaNet" but I am not seeing the necessary coverage under either name. This page consists of unreferenced coverage of partnership agreements which, even if referenced, would fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of distinct notability but a redirect to Telecom Egypt where this subsidiary is mentioned could be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2022 (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. On notability terms, this was a borderline no consensus. But G5 confirmation makes it a clear delete. If an uninvolved editor believes LCN is notable, they're welcome to create an article. Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Change Network

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

I removed the SPEEDY tag because it was contested. I still believe that delete is in order for violation of WP:ADV and promotion, but we should discuss it as a group and come to consensus. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both the nominator and Praxidicae (talk · contribs) nominated this article at exactly the same time, causing two nominations to open at once. I've tagged the second nom for G6 and ask Praxidicae to participate here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I fail to see how LCN is notable on it's own, this is nothing more than what appears to be PR but I can't find any meaningful in depth coverage and all that appears to be in the article are stories about Ganz or speaking roles/appearances that mention LCN with nothing truly independent. No objection to redirecting to Ganz PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of copying the previous comment from the second nomination. This should be considered basic cleanup only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, CSD could well have been granted for WP:ADV. Salvage option would be redirect to Ganz. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I have no objection to redirecting, provided we get consensus so we don't have to keep going through this, obviously. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already nominated this article once for speedy deletion (yesterday) as promotion, and it was quickly deleted. I see it is now back. The tone is still completely wrong, and still reeks of an advert. Redirect to Ganz until something less promotional can be written. A loose necktie (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is is possible to receive more detailed feedback as to how to make the tone right? Thank you 82.222.98.255 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten into a non promotional tone and removed all links redirecting to LCN's website. I hope it's up-to-standard now. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the changes made by Spongebobsquarepants246. No consensus on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that delete is the only option to deal with promotional tone. It does still need much work even after the latest changes though. Huggums537 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is it possible to give me more specific tips on how to adjust? I rephrased all parts that sounded subjective and removed all hyperlinks. Please let me know how to further edit. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking for help. The best advice I can offer is to look at WP:ADV and its subsequent links. I personally tend to prefer editing over deletion as a result. To me, the bulk of the narrative still reads as promotional material (which points to deletion). Others may agree or disagree, which is why we have a forum like this to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read several articles and rewritten accordingly, removing all subjective language and any links and using a neutral tone instead.

Please let me know if it reads better now. Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. Is it enough? Maybe... if consensus is that it passes the notability threshhold, I think we can move the WP:COI concerns to those of editing rather than deletion--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus concerning notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for notability as the NGO is featured as a main item (not just a brief mention) on the Commons Library for social change (an increasingly popular and credible source to all entities and resources related to community organizing)

The organization is also referenced in a credible journal inside a research paper presenting it as the main practitioner and teacher of the Public Narrative practice (the paper's topic) initially produced by LCN's founder, Marshall Ganz.

Multiple independent secondary resources reference and present the organization as appears in the article's references.

The entity's notability is not temporary, as it's active, ongoing and has significant on-ground projects around the world.

Based on these facts, my point of view is that the entity is discussed in reliable independent sources and is notable per se, and has not merely inherited notability from its founder. I wish to note that we should not be inclined to judge it "not notable" just because the founder is notable. An entity could have a notable founder and still be sufficiently notable on its own (even if less than the founder) without having inherited notability.

Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see notability as a non issue with this article. Just because it needed some editing work for promotional concerns doesn't mean no pass for notability. Those are two different things, and I think the article has now improved enough to make it a workable project. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 as an contribution by a sockpuppet with the only contributions by others being adding or fixing deletion templates. Jumpytoo Talk 01:52, 6 June 2022 (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 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Energy

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

WP:SERIESA. Notability is very far from established. Overall, this is either WP:GNG non-compliant, or WP:NOTYET. In either case, this right now is a vanity article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG, I would consider notable coverage to include the Verge and TechCrunch sources, established publications that report on climate technologies and startup companies. There is additional notable coverage in other established publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, which can be used here as a source in addition, or instead, or existing sources. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for the opportunity to prepare an updated draft for you or another neutral editor, utilizing additional notable sources and ensuring the article is neutral, drawing only from notable public coverage and secondary sources. There is an emerging market for this new climate technology category -- of which Rondo is one of several notable companies. These new technologies (not uniquely Rondo's) are a matter of public interest and receiving notable coverage. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You appear to have an incomplete understanding of our guidelines and policies. The appropriate guideline for a company/organization is WP:NCORP which includes criteria such as those found in the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a connected contributor describing the background and proposition of a start-up company. Inclusion in lists of promising start-ups and funding announcements are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Justine Calma's article in The Verge and John Cox's article about prototype trials are probably the nearest to WP:RS coverage, but are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. here. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AllyD, I would also assert that Ed Ballard's coverage in the Wall Street Journal would be considered WP:RS coverage on Rondo's page or others, as well as the Fast Company World Changing Ideas award by the Fast Company editorial board. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The connected contributor has been forthcoming, and not tried to hide their connection. The question of notability is a matter of interpretation meaning that it is far from being an absolutely clear cut case of failed notability. The prudent thing to do is keep and improve as needed. Huggums537 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WSJ & Verge pieces are mostly based off company sources, with the independent text mostly talking about the industry in general or competitors, so they would fail WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article actually has a bit of independent doubts in the last paragraph, but WP:TECHCRUNCH is not a good source to establish notability. I don't think there is enough here to meet WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 08:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Far from it being a "matter of interpretation", WP:NCORP guidelines can be summarised as requiring multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage (in reliable sources) with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria (all rely entirely on info from the company and their execs with no "Independent Content") and I can't find any that does. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look at the WSJ coverage and it's just a founder interview, so fails the independence criterion. I disagree with User:Huggums537 - the criteria are a bright line, and this company doesn't meet it. The connected contributor is why this article on a non-notable company exists, and the direct editing is inappropriate per our COI guidelines, but we don't delete articles to punish people. This article should be deleted because the company (the company, not the industry) does not meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (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. Not a good article, but that's for cleanup. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joom

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

The subject doesn't posses enough notability itself to pass WP:GNG, including WP:Reliable sources, etc. Possible COI/WP:Promo Me4ysŁaw (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (on conditions): Seems to be a decently known platform judging by the number of downloads and user reviews in the Play Store and the Apple App Store, however, it could certainly use a heavy overhaul to conform to standards. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough citations and 2 from Techcrunch, which is considered reliable. Craigwikiman (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources to count as notable. Newystats (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2022 (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. and no chance of reaching it per WP:SNOW. Nomination has attracted one keep vote in the three weeks it has been open for discussion, relisted twice already, no need to relist a third time per WP:RELIST and no need to let it run any further as there has been not one comment made in two weeks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imago therapy

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

Promotional page largely sourced to self-published sources. Mentions elsewhere are trivial or in unreliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Psychology. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree this is promotional, but it has many hits in GScholar going back 20 yrs, seems to be an accepted form of therapy. GScholar hits discuss how it works etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is a good place to search for sources for such topics, but the number of hits there is not necessarily indicative of notability. I looked at the first five or six hits and they all seemed to be from unnotable journals and written by the same group of researchers. Is there anything better further down the results? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar certainly casts a very wide net, including unpublished and un-peer-reviewed theses. (Note: I'm not saying that any of the articles in question here fall into that category!) I should point out that at least a few of the articles in question appeared first in The Journal of Imago Relationship Therapy. I can't find a lot of information on how independent that journal was from the theory's initial proponents and backers. If anyone else can provide more context for that it would be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575684/ I get that one via pubmed, this one in a Turkish journal (less about the therapy itself) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15095118/ Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on "Author information" for the first of those doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. When it was published both authors seem to have been working for commercial counselling organisations rather than universities or major teaching hospitals. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 26 May 2022 (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. While this would appear to be a no consensus by the numbers, the strength of !votes clearly tips this to delete as those have policy on their side. Those arguing this could be solved editorially have not provided policy based reasons to keep it. If someone believes there's significant Malaysian sourcing, I' happy to provide in draft. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Jet Xpress Airlines

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

the managing director of a Malaysian aviation startup came on live chat and wanted to know why his company couldn't have an article, when inadequately-sourced articles like this one exist. He's right - I checked, and I don't think this one meets notability criteria. The sources cited are primary. I'm loath to delete it based solely on the complaints of a competitor, though.

Also, the company's been around for 50 years, so maybe I'm just not using the optimal search terms or looking in the right places. DS (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline that operates a Boeing 737 size aircraft is of note, deletion is not a cure for badly referenced article it just needs some work. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNews has a few good hits in Transportation media/publications, this one [15] for example. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and a few other sources in Malaysian media, in Malay? and Chinese it looks like. I think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a press release - same as this one on the Kerry website which is marked as PR. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense to suggest that a company that operates a Boeing 737 is notable - there's nothing in our guidelines to suggest that forms part of the criteria. This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company which must be met by appropriate references and this article has no references that come close. I'm not an expert in searching for Malaysian sources though but my attempts came up empty - its all very well wishing that better sources exist but we also can't assume that they do for sure exist. Finally, references that are based on company announcements and press releases fails ORGIND and do not assist in establishing notability. As it stands, this topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just Need Some Works To The Article Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to be the one who does that work. DS (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t be necessary for someone who votes to keep an article to edit it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Operating B737 or whatever is not a free pass allowing the company to have a catalogue-entry that fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic/company appears to be of note and the article could be edited and reworked.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"appears to be of note" - where?

Edited and reworked: sure. Are you volunteering to do so? DS (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not my job or required of someone who votes to keep an article. Based on the article itself, I think the company is notable and someone else can improve or expand it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Tubes Networks

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

Obscure stub AS whose entire basis for notability seems to be a peering error made by Global Crossing in 2011 that temporarily impacted one of their customers DefaultFree (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Pirate Bay (or maybe Pirate Party of Sweden?). Not notable as a stand-alone article. -- intgr [talk] 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it should be merged, then into the Pirate Party of Sweden, who owned the service. The Pirate Bay was just a site it hosted. //Julle (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't see how any substantial part of this would make sense in either of those articles. Both the Pirate Party of Sweden and the Pirate Bay are significant entities, and this is an ISP which has merely been a service provider to both of them. By merging it into those articles, we'd a) mark this content as more important is it currently is, putting it in front of more readers, who (as opposed to those who find the article now) hadn't asked to read about this ISP and b) add information which has a rather feeble connection to the topic of the article. I'd argue it would require more notability, not less, to be merged into e.g. The Pirate Bay. //Julle (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a nexus of ownership between Serious Tubes Networks and Pirate Party of Sweden, I think that would warrant at least a brief mention. But, otherwise, I agree. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source that would support the claim, and I don't have any relevant personal knowledge. DefaultFree (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if ownership was part of the picture it could merit mentioning. But since the article doesn't suggest that it is ... That was just me misreading something, in my first comment. /Julle (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 24 May 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society Stores Supermarkets

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

small supermarket chain--fails NCORP, as the references are essentially interviews where the founder says whatever he wants to. The Forbes "article" is no different, and is by a "former contributor" DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my humble opinion, the article is adequately referenced, after the changes I made today. Fsmatovu (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a small supermarket group from its origin in purchase of an existing firm to its merger with another business owned by the same family. Leaving aside coverage which relates more to the founder and other family business, the text and references are announcement-based and fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP and no article here on Khetia Drapers to which it might be redirected. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trushar Khetia who is actually notable. There is coverage, but it is mainly local and concerns the owner. A redirect seems fine for now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunityBio

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

Not a notable company as it is only known for potentially create the first COVID-19 vaccine. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. According to Reuters "Its clinical pipeline consists of approximately 26 actively recruiting clinical trials of which 17 are in Phase II or III development, across 13 indications in liquid and solid tumors, including bladder, pancreatic, and lung cancers, and infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2 and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [16] The company is notable. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Any links to references? We need references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability in order to Keep this article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company the appropriate guidelines is WP:NCORP. I have to agree with the nom. We've some references that discusses the product (the vaccine and its technology or its "billionaire" owner) but the criteria dictates we require references that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 20 May 2022 (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 14:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Labs (company)

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

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. A before search links me to a bunch of mere announcements and press releases. WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent as well. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I explained why I wanted to create this page at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Junaruga>. But let me explain it again here. First, this page was already linked by this page, List_of_laptop_brands_and_manufacturers - Other brands. I don't belong to this company, Star Labs. And the page name "Star Labs (company)" makes sense to me. Because there is already this kind of page name, Purism (company). The reason why I wanted to create this company's Wikipedia page is because this company is open source, Linux, open firmware friendly company. There are already some presences on it. For example, there are devices (companies) using the open source firmware coreboot. See <https://doc.coreboot.org/distributions.html#star-labs>. In the listed ones, there are Wikipedia pages of Chrome OS devices, System76, Purism (company). But Star Labs didn't have the Wikipedia page. So, I wanted it. Junaruga (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Please can you show us reliable sources that shows WP:ORG met? Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let me read the document first. Junaruga (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the reliable sources.
This company's legal page by UK government: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10602146

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/05/15/linux-laptop-benchmark-dell-xps-13-star-labtop-intel-i7-8550u/

Today: https://www.today.it/best/tecnologia/computer-e-tablet/star-lite-mk-recensione-notebook-linux.html

omg!ubuntu!: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/05/starbook-mk-v-linux-laptop-specs-price

Phoronix: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=StarBook-Mk-V-Coreboot

Fossbytes Media: https://fossbytes.com/star-labs-linux-laptop/

Linux Magazine: https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/StarLabs-has-Released-Another-Linux-Laptop

Linux Today: https://www.linuxtoday.com/news/star-labs-unveil-byte-mk-i-first-amd-powered-mini-linux-pc-with-coreboot-support/

GamingOnLinux: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2022/04/star-labs-byte-announced-as-their-first-mini-pc-powered-by-amd-ryzen/ Junaruga (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reason why the page name Star Labs (company) is good. Because there are already similar page names Starlab, S.T.A.R. Labs on Wikipedia. I want to distinguish this page with those pages. Junaruga (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
UK gov	Filed by company		Just a directory listing
Forbes			– Coverage of product, not company	—
Phoronix	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
OMGUbuntu	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
9to5linux	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
Fossbytes	presumed	presumed	– Mostly a product review, plus a (very little) bit about the company	—
Linux Magazine	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
GamingOnLinux	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
GamingOnLinux 2	presumed	presumed	– Coverage of product, not company	—
Linux Today	presumed	presumed	– Calls company "well known for nice Linux laptops", but little else here	—

Most of these sources fall in the same bucket: product reviews that say little or nothing about the company otherwise. So product details are (over)sourced, but there is little from which to build a well-rounded article about the company. The claim about software freedom doesn't seem to be supported by the sources used, but otherwise what's here is well cited. The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here. Borderline. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking the sources! I can understand your points. You are right for the expression "software freedom" not seen in the source. Sorry for that. I referred Purism (company) to create the Star Labs page, and referred the expression. Maybe it's better to delete the expression in the Star Labs (company).

Now I understand the sources cover about the product, but don't the company. Here is another article by Forbes. I think this article covers a little bit more about the company.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/16/pay-attention-to-linux-laptop-company-star-labs/
- Calls the company "Linux hardware company" and "Linux laptop company".
- Has a story about the company's person "Sean Rhodes".
- Says the company was founded in 2016 in a pub.

> The product seems well-known enough that there should be some reliable coverage of the company, but it isn't here.

I agree. I couldn't find any other reliable sources about the company so far. Junaruga (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

decentralize.today: https://dt.gl/star-labs-you-close-your-curtains/
- Explains the company with a privacy? Junaruga (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's analysis of lack of coverage/depth. Product reviews, which is most of what the sources are, is not a viable means to establish notability. Also, HighKing touched on this, but the Forbes sources mentioned to establish SIGCOV/RS are WP:FORBESCON. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fore School of Management

AfDs for this article:

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

This was closed as non-consensus in past. But I want to open it again for a proper discussion. It was suggested that this is a not-for-profit organisation and hence WP:CORPDEPTH is not applicable. But it is not true. Check Business Standard a very WP:RS that explains the situation [17]. NGO status is only a front and such private institutions are essentially profit making. There were two sources presented in last AFD. The telegraph source [18] is written by an alumni so can’t be WP:INDEPENDENT. The BS news [19] is a PTI feed. Also, this BS news link is not entirely focused on FORE. It uses the FORE incident as a premise to highlight the overall issue. Frankly, discussion about FORE in this is minimal. So I don’t think that is a significant source either. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Education. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the coverage explains why this school is significant or notable. All run of the mill coverages. Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a for-profit company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 25 May 2022 (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. While the "vote count" here is roughly evenly divided, there is a policy based issue when there are complaints about the article being promotional in nature and being sourced by press releases. In particular WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION apply. That Wikipedia shall not be used as promotion for a company is a crucial to Wikipedia's reputation. I have not reviewed all 50 sources in the article, but looking at the sources discussed in this discussion, the issue that they are based on company releases has not been adequately adressed.

For example, looking at three of the sources listed by Nanpofira:

[20] is clearly promotional in nature, containing lines such as "Harnessing AI, CropIn provided technical support to conduct reliable, accurate, and large scale CCE within a short harvesting window and limited manpower."
[21] only mentions Cropin once, and that is a promotional sentence "...SmartRisk and CropIn also equip farmers with accessible intelligence in connection with crop cycle planning and yield maximization."
[22] contains the clearly promotional "CropIn has been able to revolutionise farming by incorporating technology into daily field operation."

As such, the "delete" side have made a clear and convincing argument that the article, as it stands, is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against advertising. In theory, an overly promotional tone can be resolved by editorial processes such as stubbing the article and rebuilding based on more neutral sourcing. However, the lack of independent sourcing providded here also creates an unresolved notability issue.

For this reason, I find that the clear policy based issues brought up by the "delete" side remain unrefuted and do indeed mandate deletion in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropin

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

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Despite 50 references, none meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, just announcements or articles based entirely on company info, brief mentions and additions to lists. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the reasons given by nom. and HighKing. - Hatchens (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to my understanding the policy WP:COMPANY requires multiple significant coverage in independent and reliable media. Cropin passes this criteria very clearly. To illustrate this, I will like to cite the references from India Government Portal, The Hindu Business Lines, The Financial Express, The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Lines again, The Economic Times again, Agriculture Post, Bloomberg, Economics Times again, Economics Times again , Business World, Live Mint, Forbes India, Livemint again. These must be enough. There are many more references and anyone can verify that. -- Khemotaj (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, you are correct that WP:COMPANY is the appropriate guideline but I don't see how any of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. NCORP has two important sections - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND defines "Independent content" and say in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Once you remove that information, whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Lets look at your references and when I say the article is "based" on an announcement or infomation provided by the company, it means that there is nothing I can find in the article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company:

This from IndiaAI] is entirely based and relies on an announcement from the company using quotes and information provided by the company. Fails ORGIND
This from the Hindu Business Line is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from Financial Express is a puff profile based on an interview with the founder, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from India Times is another puff profile based on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This next from Hindu Business Line is based on a company announcement and fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from Agriculture Post is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is likewise based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is entirely based on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This from Forbes India is a puff profile entirely based on company information and interview, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND

Not a single reference contains any "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) which meets CORPDEPTH. Can you point to any reference and paragraph which you believe meet ORGIND crieria? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, thanks for your detailed analysis. You are very thorough I must admit, but your entire analysis is based on a subjective assumption which is false and thus the entire analysis is flawed. To illustrate, let me repeat what ORGIND says about "Independent content"; it demands references in order to be counted 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. it also states the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.

Now, if you see, for the content or announcement which are affiliated to the primary entity, which is Cropin here, all the credible media mention such content as press release or sponsored post or something similar. In those cases, all the media houses make a very clear disclaimer that such content do come directly from the entity so they don't take any of its responsibility. The case is entirely different when any news is published under a byline of an independent journalist. Whenever any news is published with byline of a journalists or editor of credible media, they take responsibility of what they are saying, which means it satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I accept your opinion , then no matter what references are there, any entity can always be said as non-notable just because the information published are 'based on announcement'. Now, how can people know something about a company if the company doesn't provide the information? So, every news about any organization be it notable or not comes from the organization at its origin. The concentration should not be on 'based on announcement' because all the company or organizational info irrespective of the kind and nature of the organization happen to come from the respective company or organization. We need to see if the mediation between company information and published news is relaibly mediated or not, you may agree this is how the concept of primary and secondary sources are developed. The concentration rather should be on whether the published news are passing through reliable editorial oversight and in case of all major, respected media like The Hindu Business Lines, Financial Express, Live Mint, Economic Times whenever any news comes out under an independent author's byline, the media house takes the responsibility of the content, which means they are implicitly agreeing that they verify the information, fact checking everything and of course adding independent opinion since writing independently is the fundamental requirement of journalism. Khemotaj (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, that is not correct. The ORGIND section lists a series of what is called "Dependent Coverage" which among other things includes any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources. If a company announces that they're laying off 100 people and it is reported by a journalist that the company is making 100 people redundant, that is not "Independent Content" just because some words were changed. It is not "original and independent", it is regurgitating a company announcement (or quotes or interviews etc). There is no original analysis/investigation/etc carried out by the journalist (which must be *clearly attributable* to a source that is not unaffiliated with the company). The journalist/editor/etc takes responsibility for what is being written only in so far as ensuring that the text accurately reflects the announcement and doesn't report the information incorrectly by (for example) saying the company is laying off 1,000 people when the announcement said 100 people. That is what reliable editorial oversight means in that context. There are examples of "Independent Content" involving company announcements where, for example, the journalist might provide an in-depth opinion on the impact the news might have on the company or their competitors or the industry. We see this when analysts report on companies for example. Finally, you should be aware of the practice of paying for positive news in Indian publications. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi HighKing, thanks again for your response. My argumentations were primarily to dispute your claim that any references "based on" organizational announcements are not independent. Let me extend the argument further and concentrate on the set of references of this article. Firstly, there is a different between based on and entirely based on; so I think very few of the references can be actually accused of Dependent Coverage here in this case. Just at per the ORGIND, if you see this reference from The Hindu Business Lines, is an excellent comparative analysis of agro-tech startups which covers Cropin significantly. Same is true for this article from Forbes India, that discuses a comparative study of competing agro-tech firms from a neutral perspective. I am not sure why this article seemed to be a puff profile to you (did you read the article?). The article is an excellent insightful story on the agro-tech landscape of India and its challenges with the current supply chain mechanism. Also, you will find how Cropin took a very crucial role in digitizing the gigantic project Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana of Governmental of India from this article. Along with these, there are lot more references I can cite which satisfy ORGIND very well. I think you will surely find those if you dig a little more and read the references thoroughly.

Regarding your interpretation about how journalists or media houses declare their responsibilities about the content they produce (only to correspond properly to what they receive from any organization), I must say such conditional interpretation does not hold any logical ground as there are editorial oversights just to ensure that they can confidently take the responsibility of the content fully and wholly. They take the responsibility of the content that they produce under staff editor's byline wholly without any such condition. Lastly, Paid news in India is possibly a real issue apart from the fact that such corrupt practice is known to exist beyond any national horizon [23] [24], but none claimed it to be a widespread practice so I think its a minority phenomenon and it will not be right to try to extend this to generality more importantly when we lack any evidence that such practices affected the concerned references that we are discussing here. Khemotaj (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. I disagree with what you are saying and for me, your interpretation of what is required falls well short of the reality. For example, this reference from The Hindu Business Lines you say meets NCORP. It doesn't. It has a standard description of the company, mentions some recent company expansion activity and has a quote from the CEO and information provided by the CEO. Once you take away the ORGIND material (and arguably, that just about everything describing the company), the remainder is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. There is certainly no "comparative analysis" as you claim. Nor is this coverage "significant" in any way. This Forbes India reference profiles a number of companies including Cropin but again, the article relies entirely on information/quotes from the company and has no "Independent Content". This next [Forbes India reference consists of a total of four sentences which are directly linked to Cropin (two of which are credited to the CEO), this is not WP:CORPDEPTH material. Also, Ritu Verma is an investor and therefore is not an unaffiliated source. Perhaps describing it as a "puff profile" is harsh but Cropin themselves describe it as a highlighted mention, nothing more. I cannot understand why you've pointed to the India AI reference seeing as the Government of India is a partner on this project and therefore not unaffiliated, this fails ORGIND. So no, you are merely demonstrating that you don't understand NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet all the criteria (for notability) - both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time - and none of those references even come close.

Finally, your ideas about newspapers taking responsibility for the content "fully and wholly" is nonsense. In much the same way that a Wikipedia editor takes some responsibility for ensuring that the content in an article is verifiable and referenced correctly, a publisher will only stand over the verifiable accuracy of content, not the veracity of the actual content. You are simply wikilawyering to impose your interpretation that everything a journalist write which isn't a quote therefore meets ORGIND's criteria for "Independent Content" that is clearly from a source unaffiliated with the topic company. That is nonsense and the context of the articles shows it to be so. As I said, there's little point in continuing this discussion, I believe we both understand each other's point of view and have different opinions on interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization having a good amount of activities, works etc. which are covered extensively by credible sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP comfortably. Cirton (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirtos67 can you provide a link to any reference that meets NCORP? What I've seen so far fails ORGIND, all based on company announcements/interviews, perhaps I've missed something. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per rationale provided by Khemotaj, passes notability criteria WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND and per guideline WP:THREE. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the sources Khemotaj cites in a comment above as ORGIND-worthy. They touch different topics, but when it comes to the company, everything they say is directly from the company and the articles are very clear about it. The assertion that those articles pass ORGIND in any manner is plainly wrong. While I haven't gone through every source listed in the article, I agree with the HighKing's assessment above of the handful and do not see any reference that is WP:SIRS. Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated considerably by me. I have added new references and have added a section that refers to books and journals that discuss about Cropin. There are many books and journals that have extensively discussed Cropin's business model to evaluate different metrics in agro-tech farming in India. I have added only a few to illustrate the point. Khemotaj (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I disagree that the article has been "updated considerably" with some very minor changes and two new references (which adds to the WP:REFBOMB problem as it brings the total of references (mostly announcements and PR) to 53. There's a new "Further readings" section which lists some publications but none have been linked nor have been listed with IBAN or any other identifier. For example, the paper "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" doesn't even mention the topic company. The book "Cyber Technological Paradigms and Threat Landscape in India" has a single mention of the company (name) on page 86 in a list of other "AI-related start-ups". The Unleash the Neurons: Design Thinking book is another mention in passing with a standard description. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks The above Response made by HighKing has multiple false claims. Firstly, "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" does indeed discuss cropin in page 19 (available in Google Books). Secondly, majority of the books in further reading section has ISBN which is updated now. I have added a set of further books which cover the organization. In fact the book "Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good" published by Springer has a dedicated chapter on Cropin (Chapter 15, page 289). The Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing has a detailed case study on Cropin (in Chapter 7). Not sure what else can be required for to establish ORGIND. Khemotaj (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to me a prominent entity with numerous consequential collaborations with Government of India and its states as mentioned in [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Also, there are a good number of prominent media coverage so passes WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Nanpofira (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and highly promotional. The references are essentially advertisements or press releases--the wikipedia article in its surrent form reads also like a press release, and given the lack of independence of the references, there doesn't seem too be the possibility of writing something better. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Star071031-1] Thomas, Ken (October 31, 2007). "GM plant in Md. produces hybrid transmission systems". The Star-Democrat. Easton, Maryland. Associated Press. p. A10. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[Balt090424-2] Walker, Andrea K. (April 24, 2009). "GM shutdown: White Marsh transmission plant to close 4–8 weeks". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 16. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[Balt990520-3] Apperson, Jay (May 20, 1999). "GM plant planned in Balto. Co.: Truck transmissions would be built near White Marsh Mall". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 1A, 8A. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Companies deletion==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citroën India}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G-Aerosports_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sushi Roll}}