Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:32, 6 July 2022

WP:DS/CO

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Right Services

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads rather WP:PROMO and I can't find any secondary source information about it from a cursory google search. BrigadierG (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article that cannot be fixed owing to a lack of notability. Routine coverage, passing mentions, and primary sources do not meet standards at WP:CORPDEPTH. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:53, 20 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirplay

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

non-notable gambling company, no in depth coverage, just your average press releases and passing mentions in mostly non-rs PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No more than small press releases or passing mentions. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are changing headquarters, from europe to the United States.

In the meantime we are in press silence, soon we will reactivate communication with the public.

Thanks Sirplay (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no that's not how this works. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator. For the COI editor it doesn't matter why your organization doesn't have notability, as the organization is not notable it does not merit a wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominator is absolutely correct, major conflict of interest. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:53, 12 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Ventures

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or a mention-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find announcements and passing mentions of involvement in events (noting a distinct similarly-named firm in Australia), showing a company going about its business, but not the coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 10 July 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 redirect to Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology. Rough consensus is that the sources found by Cunard don't establish notability because they are routine business reporting, but that a redirect is a sensible alternative to deletion. Sandstein 12:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horizons Ventures

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or an interview. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hong Kong. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you expand on why the FT wouldn't count towards establishing notability? In addition, found in depth coverage from WSJ. Not ready to vote yet, but leaning keep. Pegnawl (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the FT article from June 2020 focuses a lot on Li Ka-shing (great name too) and "his" investments although the topic company is run by his long-term companion Ms. Chau. The article lists various companies in which the topic company invested in - but the article does not provide information on its sources. It credits "one finance industry professional who has dealt with Horizons" and to "data compiled by Dealogic" saying that "Many of the deals are private and the size of many investments have not been disclosed. Horizons does not report its returns". Ms Chau refused an interview request. Another source is described as "One investor who knows Horizons". Yet more information is credited to "People who know Ms Chau". I'm not seeing enough reliable information that meet CORPDEPTH. The WSJ source is older from 2015 and is also focused on the people, Li Ka-shing and Ms. Chau who refused to be interviewed, as well as the topic company. The information provided about the topic company is little more that a recitation of various companies into which the topic company invested and some of their well-publicised exits. The quotes/information are provided by people affiliated with the company or companies they've invested in or alongside. Again, I just don't see any CORPDEPTH material on the topic company, just a lot of surface-level recitation of deals which were available on lots of websites such as crunchbase, dealroom, etc. Finally, since most of the information is already in the Li Ka-shing article I would not be against a redirect to there instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Feng, Bangyan 馮邦彥 (2020). 香港華資財團 (1841–2020) [Hong Kong Chinese Consortium (1841–2020)] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. pp. 504–505. ISBN 978-962-04-4706-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book discusses Horizons Ventures on pages 504–505. The book notes on page 505: "維港投資取得了很大的成功,特別是 2007 年,維港投資先後兩次投資於 Facebook,共計 1.2 億美元。其後 Facebook 上市,維港投資獲得 5 倍的投資回報,一舉成名。不過,維港投資最成功的項目,是投資於視頻會議工具 Zoom。 ... "
  From Google Translate: "Horizons Ventures has achieved great success, especially in 2007, Horizons Ventures invested in Facebook twice, totaling US$120 million. Afterwards, Facebook went public, and Horizons Ventures gained 5 times the return on investment, and became famous in one fell swoop. However, the most successful project of Horizons Ventures's investment is to invest in the video conferencing tool Zoom. ..."
2. Xu, Xiaoyin 徐笑音; Li, Qiqi 李其奇 (2014). "维港投资和李嘉诚" [Horizons Ventures and Li Ka-shing]. 中国证券期货 (in Chinese) (3). ISSN 1008-0651. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The abstract notes: "全球高科技产业一系列成功故事的背后部有一个共同的投资者，那就是由两位香港女性创立的一家风投公司。该公司作为个人投资的工具，skYPe、Facebook、Spotify、Waze、Siri、DeepMind和Summly等科技界响当当的大名无不与之相关。"
  From Google Translate: "Behind a series of success stories in the global high-tech industry is a common investor, a venture capital firm founded by two Hong Kong women. The company serves as a vehicle for personal investment, and is associated with some of the biggest names in tech, such as skYPe, Facebook, Spotify, Waze, Siri, DeepMind, and Summly."
3. Lin, Xing'an 林星安 (2014). "周凯旋:李嘉诚的"另类投资"" [Zhou Kaixuan: Li Ka-shing's "Alternative Investment"]. 21世纪商业评论 (in Chinese). Nanfang Daily Newspaper Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "正近日,李嘉诚旗下的创投基金维港投资,向生产人造鸡蛋的美国食品科技公司Hampton Creek,提供1550万美元资金,引起关注。关注"前沿"产业,"激进"的投资策略,一向是维港的风格。而其实际执掌者,便是李嘉诚的亲密伙伴周凯旋"
  From Google Translate: "Recently, Li Ka-shing's venture capital fund, Horizons Ventures, provided US$15.5 million in funding to Hampton Creek, an American food technology company that produces artificial eggs, causing concern. Focusing on "frontier" industries and "radical" investment strategies have always been the style of Horizons Ventures. The actual person in charge is Li Ka-shing's close partner Zhou Kaixuan"
4. O'Neill, Mark (2018). 異地吾鄉︰猶太人與中國 [My Home in a Different Land: Jews and China] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 281. ISBN 978-962-04-4296-4. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "過去 5 年,李嘉誠旗下風險投資業務「維港投資」(Horizons Ventures)在以色列的投資活動非常活躍,迄今已向該國不少最具創新活力的企業投放資金,投資案共達 24 項。在維港投資所支持的項目裡,其中一個最成功的案例,是一家 GPS 導航的地圖軟件公司「Waze」。"
  From Google Translate: "In the past five years, Horizons Ventures, Li Ka-shing's venture capital business, has been very active in investing in Israel. So far, it has invested in many of the country's most innovative companies, with a total of 24 investment projects. Among the projects supported by Horizons Ventures, one of the most successful cases is "Waze", a map software company for GPS navigation."
5. Xiao, Tengyuan 驍騰原; Pan, Qicai 潘啟才 (2017). 憩富發達指南 [A Guide to Prosperity] (in Chinese). Taipei: 真源有限公司. ISBN 978-988-77-3095-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "在這方面,香港也有這樣的創投獲利高手—李嘉誠。李嘉誠創辦的「維港投資」,投資多個創科公司,成績亦相當彪炳。「維港投資」於2007年,亦有向facebook投資1.2億美元,5年後Facebook上市時,估計獲得了最少5倍的回報。近年,李嘉誠旗下基金投資了全."
  From Google Translate: "In this regard, Hong Kong also has such a master of venture capital profits - Li Ka-shing. "Horizons Ventures", founded by Li Ka-shing, has invested in a number of innovation and technology companies, and has achieved outstanding results. In 2007, "Horizons Ventures" also invested 120 million US dollars in Facebook. When Facebook went public five years later, it was estimated that it had obtained a return of at least 5 times. In recent years, Li Ka-shing's fund has invested in the entire."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horizons Ventures (traditional Chinese: 維港投資; simplified Chinese: 维港投资技) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This again. It doesn't matter how much money is invested, how much money the company shovels around, who its partners are, or which analysts want to price its stock. This article is a perma-stub. The criteria at WP:NCORP call on us to "consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This one does not seem to, and follows the common "in business, raised money" template I mention in WP:SERIESA. I vehemently disagree with User:Cunard's frequent argument that "by the numbers" reporting on these kinds of companies establishes notability. FalconK (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd only because it's unclear whether Cunard's have been fully reviewed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Li Ka-Shing is notable, and the coverage of Horizons Ventures on his page is adequate. Having two pages covering mostly the same material is unnecessary. Anyone looking for info on Horizons Ventures will be better off landing on his page, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique to differentiate this venture capital firm from hundreds of other non-notable venture capital firms, which is probably why none of the media coverage actually focuses on the firm itself, beyond passing mentions. Chagropango (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have the utmost respect for User:Cunard's abilities to find sources, as I hope they're aware. I'll confess I'm often persuaded to !vote keep by sources Cunard presents during formal procedures. I'm sure that's partially because we share similar views on notability and verifiability, and I'm inclined to support such views. In this case, they have presented us a series of routine business news articles, to my limited ability to read them. I performed a reasonable BEFORE and I'm not seeing anything in English sources which reads differently than the summaries of Cunard's translated quotations. Yes the company is verifiable; No the subject lacks significant coverage directly detailing from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Li Ka-Shing is well covered and his foundation gets him more wiki-ink, but given the breadth of this fellow's activities, I don't even think this company is notable to him. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BusterD (talk · contribs), how is coverage in two book sources and an academic journal article "routine business news articles"? Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to amend my comment to "routine business coverage." This is a company that has acquired capital and invested wisely. Good for them. One of the two women who founded the company happens to be the ~~"partner"~~ "long term companion" of the "30th richest man in the world." Totally independent? Not so much. IMHO, everything I'm reading about Horizons Ventures is seems to be written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing. Just not seeing corporate depth. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Horizons Ventures received two pages of coverage in a book that discusses the company's history and significance. How is this "routine business coverage" and how does this not meet WP:CORPDEPTH? If two pages of coverage in a book is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, what would be enough?
      Horizons Venture co-founder Solina Chau is a business partner of Li Ka-Shing. She is not the "partner" of him which has a different meaning. From https://www.forbes.com/profile/solina-chau/, "Chau founded venture powerhouse Horizons Ventures in 2002 with partner Debbie Chang Pui Vee. Li Ka-shing came in as a backer two years later." These sources are all independent of Li Ka-Shing. There is no evidence that they were "written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing". Sources with a positive tone that are independent of the subject can be used to establish notability.
      Cunard (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me for reading "long term companion" in the WSJ source and not drawing the conclusion she is totally independent of her business "partner". Are you reading what you just wrote? The standard of corporate depth may be met in a two page book mention? Really? WP:CORPDEPTH literally concludes a company possesses such depth if it's "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." A ridiculously low standard. And these sources are the best that can be found? By a wikipedian whose sourcing acumen is well respected? Write more than a very brief, incomplete stub on this subject and I'll concede depth. Everything I'm able to see in sources is already in the article. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I lost my temper. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I cannot believe my comments would provoke such a hurtful response infused with hostility at me. You called two pages of coverage "a two page book mention" and WP:CORPDEPTH "a ridiculously low standard". Two pages of coverage in a book is not a "mention". The WP:CORPDEPTH guideline is the community consensus-backed standard even if you believe it is "a ridiculously low standard". The Chinese-language sources contain plenty of information that is not in the Wikipedia article, which at 157 words is already beyond a "very brief, incomplete stub". Editors' comments here dissuade me from investing time into improving the article which could still get deleted after it is improved. I will limit my response to this as discussing this further would make this an even more unpleasant experience for me. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The editors who supported deletion have not refuted the significant coverage about the company in several books (two pages in Feng 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFeng2020 (help) and multiple paragraphs in O'Neill 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO'Neill2018 (help)).
Xu & Li 2014 is published in 中国证券期货, an academic journal of securities and futures published by the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing. From a Google Translate of the federation's Wikipedia article (zh:中国物流与采购联合会), "China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing is a national, non-profit and industry social organization composed of enterprises, institutions and social groups in the logistics and procurement industry of the People's Republic of China. It is under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council." The article discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing.
To say that these book and academic journal sources are "'by the numbers' reporting" or "routine business news articles" is very inaccurate. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The book Hong Kong Chinese Consortium (1841–2020) by Feng provides a standard description of the company on page 504 complete with a map/diagram taken from the topic company's website and on page 505 lists some of the investments - the exact same information from the websiate and the same as that which we've seen in multiple other articles. It is neither significant nor in-depth. Nor is it two full pages about the company as you've described, it is more accurate to say there are a couple of sentences on each of the pages that deal specifically with this company. In a similar vein, the brief mention in the book by O'Neill for a total of three sentences is neither significant nor in-depth. Finally, why do you say that the paper published in Issue 3 2014 of China Securities Futures by Xu Xiaoyin (translator) Li Qiqi is about this topic company? You say that it discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing. Perhaps you've mistaken the reference or something because the article journal you've linked to appears to not even mention the topic company, focussed instead on a different firm "Victoria Harbour Investment" which is another Li Ka-shing investment vehicle. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree with the analysis of the sources. Feng 2020 provides detailed analysis about the company's history on two pages. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate, the text about the company would amount to over 500 English words, which is very substantial coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. It is not surprising that the source discusses Horizons Ventures' investments in significant companies and that other sources do too as this is what is notable about the ocmpany. This does not mean the source is not independent. The inclusion of a map of the investments from the company does not mean the text is non-independent. I read through the company's website including pages like https://www.horizonsventures.com/portfolio/ and https://www.horizonsventures.com/news/ and could not verify that the text of the book is based on the website. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate, O'Neill 2018 would provide at least 250 words about the company, which is significant coverage. The paper Xu & Li 2014 is about Horizons Ventures. The paper has "维港投资" in the title, which corresponds with the Chinese characters in the logo of http://www.horizonsventures.com/. "Victoria Harbour Investment" is what Google Translate translates the Chinese name of Horizons Ventures to.
    Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I maintain that Horizons Ventures is a notable company under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria that should have a standalone article. I as a second choice support a redirect to Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the company is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This will allow a selective merge of the content as well as the redirect to be undone if more reliable sources are found in the future.
Pinging HighKing (talk · contribs), Pegnawl (talk · contribs), Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs), Chagropango (talk · contribs), and BusterD (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology (with the history preserved under the redirect) as an alternative to deletion?
Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with a redirect as suggested by Cunard. BusterD (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, on reflection, a redirect as suggested is a better option, thanks Cunard. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, it's a good idea.Chagropango (talk) 06:39, 3 August 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 as there is no indication anyone wants to work on this in draft space, so without that it's just kicking it six months down the road. If someone wants it, no need to go through Refund, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Marine Group

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

Citations are not good. Mostly some press releases and routine coverage. TheMermaidWomen (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheMermaidWomen (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company seems to be pretty large, I would expect a company of this size to pass WP:NCORP. Maybe there just aren't many articles in english? The article as it stands definitely requires improvement however. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: GoldMiner24 is right. This company appears to have indication of notability. Why cant we move this to draft space instead of deleting? Interested editors can work on this, find citations to establish notability.Akevsharma (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: There seems to be a room for improvement. 2405:204:28E:3E17:34BF:13FF:FEE9:2065 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We typically don't draftify 9 year old articles although a AFD closer could still choose that option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also thought I'd mention that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's especially confusing since the nominator's main account suggested keeping this article in the last AfD. But now that it's here, it seems pretty clear that the subject doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Size or assets are specifically not criteria in WP:NCORP. Foreign language articles would be acceptable, but would need to be found and might not exist. As it stands, this page exists for the company's SEO or to improve their sales or something. FalconK (talk) 23:19, 26 July 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 redirect to The Under Presents. ✗plicit 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Claws

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

Fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP - games developer with no independent coverage, very poor sourcing attempts to disguise a patently commercial and non-notable article. When you're presenting a gaming company as interesting because one of its games is unplayable, you're in the weeds, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Under Presents along with Samantha Gorman as a WP:ATD. Since their game is notable, there's definitely a place for them on Wikipedia, but it's probably just a redirect as of now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 04:58 , 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to The Under Presents. Occurs only passingly in sources that are about the the games. The Under Presents seems to be the only game with an article. If there was a second notable game, the article should be deleted per WP:XY. IceWelder [✉] 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 08:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Under Presents as per WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:ATD. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 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 11:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frames Per Second Films

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

Film production services company doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP, as far as I can tell. My search didn't find any significant coverage—only occasional passing mentions in the press. Without sources that discuss the company "directly and in detail", it isn't notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 12 July 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 redirect to Robotic vacuum cleaner#List of robotic vacuum cleaners. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge sourced material. No clear reason to delete first Star Mississippi 15:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BObsweep

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

Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robotic vacuum cleaner. This gets some coverage, such as reviews in PC Magazine and USA Today, but not finding much else in terms of significant coverage. The USA Today source is written by a staff writer (link) but is a bit promotional in tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add to Robotic vacuum cleaner#List of robotic vacuum cleaners. PK T(alk) 17:35, 6 July 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!} 05:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill (communications agency)

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

Promo page by paid editor with declared COI, no evidence of notability, links are all PR sites and paid ads. Previously speedied. JamesG5 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, from either the sources in the article or elsewhere. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And should have been speedied again. SALT this time. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Cites primary sources and routine business news only, non-SIGCOV. Self-promotion, does not meet NCORP 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COI article summarising a PR agency's area of operation. Notability is not inherited from clients and inclusion in fastest-growing lists are regarded as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business, and acquiring other sector firms, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 10 July 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. SNOW in July. Star Mississippi 17:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Bioresearch Ltd

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

WP:SERIESA and WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The only WP:RS references are articles by, rather than about, the company. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my discussion at User_talk:Ingenuity#innovative_bioresearch_ltd_page. I can find hardly any reliable sources, and nowhere near enough to meet WP:NCORP. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional very reputable news outlets covering the research. DaneDN (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. references are scientific publications, and news articles covering the research like this one from one of the most notable medical news outlets http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That'd make it WP:PRIMARY and hence ineligible. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also added another very good reference from Aktien - Börse - Aktienkurse (wallstreet-online.de)

Innovative Bioresearch Announces Publication of Pioneering Pilot Study Exploring SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Cell-Based Therapy for HIV in Humanized Mice - 26.04.2016 (wallstreet-online.de) DaneDN (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Added additional sources:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

https://www.tecnomedicina.it/archos-collabora-con-innovative-bioresearch-per-promuovere-safe-t-min/ DaneDN (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

·Do not delete. The INNBC cryptocurrency is very popular. I feel the need for more crypto experts to chime in before we can say this page should be deleted. Diodellecrypto (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's definetively articles about INNBC. You are not doing any digging.

https://www.investorsobserver.com/news/crypto-update/innovative-bioresearch-coin-innbc-rises-66-69-outperforms-the-crypto-market-monday Diodellecrypto (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't. Most of these people seem only here for negative\meaningless comments, never provide any actual help searching sources. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_News_Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneDN (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneDN: The nature of the sources forms the key objection to WP:NCORP notability. Not only should the sources be reputable, but they must also operate with an independent fact finding voice. Also per WP:CORPDEPTH, the coverage should be non-routine. Sources based on what the company or its principals says about it, including interviews (e.g. Cryptotrends), are not considered independent. Announcements like wallstreet-online.de are not considered routine in nature, lacking necessary depth. That one also looks more like a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Medical News today disclaimer they claim this:

"Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy."

It is crystal clear that

1)Medical News today is a very reliable source.

2)They are independent - meaning they only publish news if they find them relevant - they do don't do paid nor promotional articles. They are absolutely a fact finding voice, moreso as they are a medical newsoutlet and must provide accurate medical news.

3)They used the peer reviewed academic research as a source of data, and any claim or announcement the compay have made woud have not been mentioned had it not be judged of significant impact in the field, newsworthy and legit.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you say goes against what is claimed by the journal policy. I suggest you to carefully review their eidtorial policy, specifically these points:

"At Medical News Today, we’re committed to providing trustworthy, accessible, and accurate information so our readers are equipped to care for their health and wellness. We use an established editorial process to ensure we’re providing the best possible information.

Our editorial process is the backbone of everything we do. We use this process to make sure that everything we publish meets our high standards.

Our team creates and edits every piece of content based on the four pillars of our editorial process:

1.learning and maintaining trust

2. keeping high journalistic standards

3. prioritizing accuracy, empathy, and inclusion

4. monitoring and updating content continually

These pillars ensure that our readers can always find the timely, evidence-based information they need."

In addition to explain why is Medical News Today, one of the most important medical news outlets, not an indendent source, can you also explain why Wat is Innovative Bioresearch? - Newsbit is not not considered independent as well?

Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business buzz references. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an interview, it is a news article covering the company. DaneDN (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Italy, and United Kingdom. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable crypto startup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Innovative Bioresearch Ltd is not a crypto start up. It is a pharma start up founded in 2014 that did not produce any blockchain related product before 2018. They expanded their activity in the blockchain space but they remain a pharmaceutical\biotech start up developing drugs and therapies for HIV and Cancer. DaneDN (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the article is based on what THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW ACADEMIC PUBLICTION SAYS. Without the peer reviewed publication as a source, they would never report any info. In fact, they cite the publication (Article: SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice) as a source of info for the article itself.

Now, Added another source:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS about Innovative Bioresearch, its biomedical research and its blockchain applications s not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source:

ARCHOS collabora con Innovative Bioresearch per promuovere Safe-T min - Tecnomedicina

Please explain why this independent source covering the activity of Innovative Bioresearch such as cooperating with big electronic companies such as Archos is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DaneDN seems to be a SPA promoting this company, which of course throws up the usual concerns of WP:PAID, WP:COI and others. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. https://www.tecnomedicina.it/is a news outlet specialied in pharma and tech news, which independently covered the news. They have not been paid to report this news. Do you have any evidence to back up such a bold claim? Tecnomedicina - Innovazione e tecnologie digitali al servizio della medicina e della sanità is a very respectable and reputable Italian news outlet and they reported the news because Archos is a very big company.

Also please explain why this news coverage by IRISH TECH NEWS is not valid.

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/ DaneDN (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technomedicina.it: Lacks CORPDEPTH as yet another company announcement composed of what the company says. Irish Tech News: a listicle entry that is a restatement of the company's noble goals. Not very deep and zero depth about the company. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)You fail to provide evidence that https://www.tecnomedicina.it is promoting Archos or Innovative Bioresearch. Such a bold claim needs some serious evidence. Where is the conflict of interest of Technomedicina.it by covering this news? In no way are they affiliated with Archos nor innovative Bioresearch. They covered the news of the cooperation between Archos and Innovative Bioresearch. They describe the deal, confirming that it is real, not just reporting what the companies say, but they explain to the reader what the deal is about. They also describe the kind of application Innovative Bioresearch is developing,using their own words and not reporting what the company says: "Innovative Bioresearch sta costruendo un’applicazione basata sulla tecnologia blockchain. Consiste in un database decentralizzato per i dati clinici e in una piattaforma sociale per la comunità sieropositiva dell’HIV. Consente a medici e pazienti di tutto il mondo di condividere e accedere a informazioni cliniche consolidate al fine di iniziare più rapidamente prove e trattamenti diretti." This sentence was wrote by the journalist and not by the company.

2)Irish Tech News is providing some bullet points to highlight what are the most significant developments of the company in the field. They made their own research before reporting this information. The fact that those goals are defined as "nobel" is a personal, independent, opinion of the journalist who wrote the article. They describe the medical initiatives operated by the company and conclude that those are "nobel, important humanitarian goals", nowhere is cited the company saying those goals are nobel, as this is a persoonal opinion of the journalist. In fact, one could argue that it is the opportunity to generate substantial profits by developing an HIV cure that is driving the company and not a humanitarian spirit as this is not a no profit company. They talk in enough deep detail of the blockchain application developed by the company, describing it with their own words and not reporting what the company says. DaneDN (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing coverage and all the back and forth above, RS coverage is sizzle, not steak, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. With almost zero depth of coverage about the company, the article is a crypto project masquerading as a company profile. The subject biotech with minor published research, that aims to be yet another "disruptive tech" company. Stenographic journalism doesn't add up to notability. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business."

This is the core of your wrong assumption, which seems due to a lack of education in science. Science is not based on opinions but hard facts. As such, it is not "what a company principal says" that is reported here, it is WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS SAY. The only part of the Medical News Today article where they mention the company announcing the publication of the study is in the beginnig "Innovative Bioresearch has announced the publication of a pioneering pilot study in the MDPI journal Vaccines". This is it. After that, they cover the results of the study. This means they summarize the study findings, using the study abstract as a source:

"The animals were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI followed by weekly SupT1 cell infusions as an HIV treatment over a 4-week study period. Analysis of the results revealed some interesting tendencies in the generated data, such as significantly lower viral replication (~10-fold) and potentially preserved CD4+ T cell frequency at Week 1 in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion. Of note, one animal exhibited a sustained decrease in HIV replication and CD4+ T cell depletion (no virus detected anymore at Weeks 3 and 4), a result that may hold the key to future HIV treatments."

Now, this is clearly sourced from the study abstract:

"In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID₅₀), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy.'

Medical News Today article is not based on "what the company principal says", it is based on what the results of the exeriments say. such results are not an opinion but the result of approval and validation by the peer review process. If the company principal would mention results different than what reported in the study, they would absolutely not report it. They would stick to what is reported in the peer reviewed study. DaneDN (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not PubMed nor Peer reviewed. As such, you have no scientific credibility to judge or talk about the biomedical research performed by the company and define it as "minor". If not, please provide the link to a review article published on a peer reviewed journal where you describe the research findings of the company as "minor" and such article has been accepted for publication. If the research has been published on peer reviewed scientific journals, it means the editors of such journals decided the research is relevant and scientifically sound enough to be published. You are not part of the peer review system, nor you have such qualification. Can you provide evidence of such qualifications? Please leave out any persomal bias and opinions and stick to the facts. In their main study, SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice - PubMed (nih.gov), they report that "In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID50), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy."

You must admit that by defining peer reviewed HIV research as "a crypto project masquerading as a company profile" you are really grasping at straws. There is hard, undenaible evidence of the fact that Innovative Bioresearch is a pharma company that is performing HIV cure research. The company is also expanding their research using blockchain technology. But that does not change the fact that the company is producing actual peer reviewed science and as such it's a pharma\biotech company. The issue here is the lack of understanding that official science is only those present on peer reviewed publications. You fail to realize that any secondary source that is not backed by a scientific publication as a primary source cannot be considered legit. Now, you also fail to aknowledge that one of the most important medical news outlets, medical news today covered the news of such finding describing them with enough detail https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017 as well as that they would never cover such info had it not being included in a peer reviewed scientific article. The source is reliable, independent, and does not lack notability. Science is not about opinions but hard facts. Any interpretations, analysis, comment that is made by a newsoutlet about a scientific study will pose the danger of being misleading because it has not been validated by peer review. This is why most medical news outlets have the tendency to stick to the facts and report exactly what is reported in the peer review studies, without adding much personal analysis. Such analysis could seriouly hurt patients, as well as not being ethical to make important claims that are not being validated by peer review.

DaneDN (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) A decent source analysis would be more useful than a wall of text; (2) the article currently reads rather like a brochure for the company, to the extent I was verging on a TNT even if the company is notable; (3) too many of the sources are primary literature from the company's founder; (4) to the intelligent-but-uninformed reader, the article fails to explain why blockchain cryptocurrencies are related to pharma development; (5) the Medical News Today article, whatever their editorial policy, doesn't inspire confidence: it is written by (no name) on an invalid date, and states quite openly that it is based on a company announcement. I am teetering on the brink of a delete here. Elemimele (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1)A big issue here is a fundamental lack of understanding of the peer review process and what is considered official science, which is evident by some comments. As such, the need for introducing some concepts in greater detail.

2)I am just reporting the official infomation sourced by the scientific publications and news articles found online, If you have any suggestion, instead of just trying to censor, vandalize, and delete information, contributing would be much more appreciated.

3)Such literature contain data that has been validated by the peer review process and as such it is universally accepted by the entire scientific community as part of the official scientific literature. This means that several peers, which are leading experts in the field, reviewed the paper and all the experiment data, requested modifications and\or revisions if needed, and every single statement, data, sentence, every single word present in the paper had to be approved by them, after being ultimately approved and accepted by an acamedic editor. Any claim that is made in the paper with regard to the data had to be approved as scientifically sound by the peer reviewers and editor before being accpeted. Therefore, this is not the result of the work of a single person, but ultimately the result of a process that involved the effort of several leading experts in the field, who contributed to the final revision form of the article. The academic Editor for this article, Diane M. Harper, is an internationally recognized virologist. Given that, each publication also features multiple references supporting the claims made by the author. Now, given that the company founder is a research scientist who firstly conceived this approach, it is quite normal that most of the scientific literature concerning the in vitro and in vivo testing of SupT1 cell infusion therapy is the result of academic publications made by the author. However, I also added publications from other authors on SupT1 cells now.

4)I was under the impression that this was explained in this sentence:

"INNBC is serving as a digital payment system to access all the products and services developed by Innovative Bioresearch Ltd, as well as supporting their development. As such, INNBC is a "DeSci" (decentralized science) token, decentralizing several aspects of biomedical research, from the funding of the research itself, to the sharing of the scientific data." I added a further explanation.

5)The confidence is inspired by the fact that Medical News Today is sourcing the data from the peer reviewed study. As such, we know for sure they are not 'making things up" but rather reporting info that has been previouly validated by the peer review system. The journal itself is very reputable and even if the name of the author is not mentioned, that does not substract from its general good reputation as medical news outlet. In addition, the date is not incorrect, it is reporting the date of the source "Vaccines, doi:10.3390/vaccines4020013, published 26 April 2016." It is also not stated anywhere in the article that the source is based on a company announcement, the source is clearly provided at the bottom of the article as the peer review academic publication. The only official source for scientific data. As per their policy, "Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles." They clearly say they link the source at the bottom of the article, the peer reviewed paper is linked at the bottom. DaneDN (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I accept the medical news today article as a genuinely secondary commentary on the primary article released by Fior, that's one bit of evidence the company is notable, based on having produced one good idea a while ago. But we've still got an up-hill struggle here. For example, the NewsBit story says the company is based in the UK, but it's listed at Companies House as a dormant company with almost no assets. Maybe NewsBit is wrong, and it's massive in Italy? I still think it's iffy: yes, primary scientific literature is peer-reviewed, which we regard as making it reliable, but given the truly enormous quantity of primary science papers published per year, we can't guarantee notability to a company just because its founder has published some papers. We need at least to check their citation rate, which I haven't done, on the grounds that if they're highly cited, Fior himself might be notable. But if he founded a company based on a few papers before 2014, and the whole thing fizzled, then from a bio-science point of view, there is nothing to write about. I don't know enough to assess the relevance of cryptocurrencies. Elemimele (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official info provided in the scientific papers, the company is registered both in Italy and UK. This paper was published in 2014 reporting this affiliation: "Innovative Bioresearch, Milan, Italy." The same company was also registred in the UK in 29 May 2018, according to company house. From my understanding and from the info reported on the official website, the company was started in Italy, then they expanded and opened a UK branch when they started their blockchain actvity in 2018. It is possible they perform the research activity in Italy, and the blockchain activity in the UK. If they decided to issue a crypto asset as an alternative to selling stocks, it would just make sense to keep the company dormant as they are not actively trading any conventional asset, just the token, which is not a security. With regard to the notability of a research paper, one way to misure that is the altmetric score. According to the altmetric score of their main research paper:

"This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 715. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2022.

Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric."

Being included among the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric strongly suggests notability for the research and as such for the company being mentioned for the research they performed. DaneDN (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (1) Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low [1]. (2) Although the NewsBit article states the company is based in the UK, companies house says it has been dormant since its foundation and never had any assets greater than £100. Thus we're left with basically three sorts of sourcing: a handful of barely-cited research papers, a Medical News summary of one of those papers, and a NewsBit article that claims existence of a UK company that in reality doesn't exist. There's no sign of the company having any product except the Crypto thing (about which I defer to crypto experts) but from a biological/medical perspective I can't find any notability whatsoever. Elemimele (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low"

This is not true. This paper alone has 23 citations, which is considered a very good number for a scientific paper. DaneDN (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)Are you ignoring on purpose the altmetric score because it does not fit your narrative?

Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric. Altmetric score is a very important parameter regarding notability. Research quality is a multidimensional concept. Citation is one parameter, which does not reflect several key dimensions of research quality. Even though what you say is not even correct, as just the paper on cancer by Fior has 23 citations, a very good number.

2)The official website says the company operative office is based in Italy and they only have a UK branch. In this interview with CEO he says the company is based in Italy (Interview with CEO Jonathan Fior, Innovative Bioresearch - YouTube) so it seems the NewsBit article has incomplete info. This is also confirmed by other sources reporting the company as an Italian company https://profit-hunters.biz/it/innovativo-bioresearch-revolyucionnaya-Baza-klinicheskix-dannyx/ Why are you ignoring such information? Also, the fact is that being dormant does not mean the company is not actively producing products (in fact, it is releasing many applications as it got featured among the top 5 start ups impacting Decentralized Research) it just means they are not trading company stocks. You need to learn the difference between equity and cryptocurrency. Even though the company set their equity value as £100 (which is purely indicative as it is only when a company goes public selling stocks that an official evaluation is done with an external institution like a bank providing the real value for the company stocks), this has nothing to do with the value of their cryptoasset, INNBC, which can have value of several million dollars, nor it indicates the company isn't actively developing products, especially given that, as reported by the official website and scientific papers, the company operative division is located and registered in Italy.

DaneDN (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added an additonal source indicating notability for the company, as it has been featured among the "5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research". Please provide explanation why this additional source is not valid. Please provide explanation why being indicated among the top 5 Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research does not indicate notability.

5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research | StartUs Insights (startus-insights.com) DaneDN (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me just a promotional article. I fully concur with all the motivations brought forward by various users for deletion. P1221 (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe so, why don't you contribute the article by editing and rephrasing it into what you believe is a more neutral description? Instead of just wanting to delete information as a priority, why not also putting contributing as an opportunity to improve the information reported on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I would like to change my proposal to delete and salt owing to the activity of a SPA with COI or undisclosed paid editing who is heavily promoting this article (DaneDN). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exacly am I promoting the company? Am I suggesting to invest in this project? Absolutely not. I am just reporting the information I collected from various sources. Please provide some examples and suggestions as this article is open to any contribution to be improved. Provided that you are willing to do any contribution at all, which seems unlikely. DaneDN (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you report incorrect information and assume they are correct, due to a lack of knowledge in a specific area, and think this is acceptable? For example, this paper alone by Fior has 23 citations, which is considered a pretty good number for a scientific peer review paper. To give some context:

"How many citations is considered good?

What is a good number of citations? With 10 or more citations, your work is now in the top 24% of the most cited work worldwide; this increased to the top 1.8% as you reach 100 or more citations. Main take home message: the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10!'

Yet, you say that "Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low". This is just plain flat out wrong. And it's just one example. DaneDN (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not wrong. Fior's top paper has 23 citations, his 2nd has 4. I invite you to compare this with a genuinely notable scientist; I used Ute Roessner, at [2]. Note that her top 20 papers range from 225 upwards. There is nothing magical or special about her example; almost all scientists who qualify as notable in Wikipedia terms will have multiple papers in the top 1%. But I'm not going to argue the toss indefinitely; this whole AfD is beginning to look like bludgeoning. I came into this with an open mind, looked around, and found no notability. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just wrong if you claim that this is an "extremely low number of citations". It is just flat out wrong with respect to the average number of citations considered by the scientific community as a highly cited paper. The general consensus among scientists is that "the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10".And Fior's paper has more than twice this number. There is nothing magical or special about claiming that scientists in the top 1% have papers with more than 200 citatioms, as this is not what we are dicsussing here. We are not discussing about including Fior among the most cited scientists on Wikipedia. We are discussing the fact whether with respect to the average number of citations for a scientific article, 23 citations is considered an extremely low number as claimed by you. And, it is not, according to the scientific community.

Finally, I also invite you to consider that relevant studies in the field "found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of ‘highly cited researchers’. In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. "

"Consequently, we establish that for a non-professional reader who turns to Wikipedia with an exploratory purpose of finding some prominent researchers in a field, the encyclopedia might be misleading, as it provides no reliable visual cues that might be a proxy of academic notability. We conclude that the absence of correlation between Scopus and Wikipedia metrics suggests that they measure different phenomena.'

Which is why you should not ignore the scientific standard if you want to improve the representation of what is considered scientifically relvant on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, the discussion here is not about the creation of Fior's wikipeda page, but whether Innovative Bioresearch as a company along with InnovativeBioresearchCoin (INNBC) as a cryptocurrency have notability. As such, you should not ignore all the sources added strongly indicating notability such as the company inclusion among 5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research DaneDN (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like good at first, but nope. wp:gng ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also looks like a crypto scam and spam 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
99% of cryptos are called scams. It is so trendy. But, actually, they are more legit than you, given that you are here anonymously, while they put a name of what they are doing. DaneDN (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneDN: This crosses the line into personal attack territory. Anonymous IP editors are as welcome at AfD and on the Wikipedia project as the pseudonymously registered editors. AfD comments are weighed by basis in policy and editor experience. Questioning an editor's legitimacy for an opinion or calling an edit vandalism because you do not approve is not acceptable. Challenge the argument, not the editor. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This crosses the line into public defamation territory against the company. Claiming publicly that a company is "a crypto scam and spam" is a criminal defamation offence. And it can be punished by law. Protecting yourself against the law hiding behind anonymity does not make your activity as a wikipedia editor more legit, especially not more than a business that is not conducted anonymously as in the case of Innovative Bioresearch. DaneDN (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scam: Unfair? Yes. Defamation of a crypto project? Good luck with that. Legally actionable? This isn't the venue. Besides, another part of WP:NPA is no legal threats. Spam: That's a label that looks increasingly applicable. You too are anonymous and Wikipedia policies grant the registered user more privacy protection than an exposed and traceable IP address. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a business a scam\fraud means intentionally damaging its reputation. As such, it can be considered public defamation. You should not abuse the wikipedia privacy protection to commit a criminal defamation offence. DaneDN (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. See definition there of trivial coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, NCORP and reeks of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also happy to salt and require going through AfC to recreate. Based on WP:NCORP and Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). Uses INNBC as a reference which is a primary source. Adding in research papers by "Fior, Jonathan" which can also be seen as a primary source. Then there are the references that are routine coverage and you are left with sourcing that is insufficient. Gusfriend (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read the discussion here and on Ingenuity's talk page and reviewed the sources. They're all problematic in one way or another; non-reliable, primary, press releases, just a whole bunch of noise but nothing worth being said. The article fails WP:GNG by virtue of lack of reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:NCORP outright (especially when factoring in WP:NCRYPTO). - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 11 July 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 redirect to Singer (Sri Lanka). (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sisil

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

Unsourced, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Or redirect to Singer (Sri Lanka) as alt. Amon Stutzman (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Amon Stutzman: Why do you state that the article is unsourced? When you nominated it for deletion, it had (and as of this post, still has) three sources used as inline citations (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I can't find much to support its independant notability. FalconK (talk) 23:14, 26 July 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 merge to Vorwerk (company). Seems to be a consensus that some of the information is worth keeping, and some of the products have been reviewed numerous times, but the brand itself is not passing WP:GNG. I will leave it to editors to kindly merge and convert the current article to a redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neato Robotics

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

In-depth coverage is non-existent about this non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Amon Stutzman (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is an early pioneer and actively selling products in the area of robot vacuum cleaners, one of the very few consumer level robotics products. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Vorwerk (company), its parent company. Significant coverage exists in the form of reviews of the company's various products, such as CNET, PC Magazine, Engadget, PC Magazine, Engadget, Mashable, etc., but the sources don't say much about the company itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a bit weak on company coverage, but the product line is notable, and as Oleg pointed out, they are considered a pioneer in the consumer robotics industry. I thought about flipping it around and renaming it Neato robotic vacuums, with a small section for the company, but that would be a bit clunky, and I'm not sure that's an obvious search term. I also thought about a merge to Vorwerk (company), but that article's company overview section is a bit of a mess with unsourced bulleted text, and any merge of product info would make it unbalanced. Keeping it, but with maybe a bit less product detail, seems to be the best option. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The product review seems like a type of advertisement and product placement, refers to WP:PRODUCTREV. And the sources just don't show notability for the subject. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been around for more than 10 years, and theirs is one of the earliest and most innovative current robot vacuum designs. The things you find excessive can be trimmed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 05:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice toward a Merge per NorthAmerica. Andrevan@ 22:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A merge may be a pain as the parent company has a very different product line and unrelated history. It may be clearer for the reader if these are kept separate, but current article may need to be slimmed down perhaps. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the target suggested by Northamerica1000. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 21 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Outpost

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

Proposed for deletion in June 2020 by Mean as custard as Advert for unnotable emporium. An IP later contested the PROD at REFUND in November 2020 claiming WP:ITSIMPORTANT, but the article is still based almost exclusively on primary sources one and a half years later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO for a non-notable gallery. Fails wP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources about the Beijing-based Oriental Outpost, which is an artwork and calligraphy gallery. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article substantially created by a probably connected contributor, describing the online sales history of a small business without indication of notability. Searches find no evidence of attained WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:22, 9 July 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!} 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PicNet

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

I placed a PROD on this article last week with the rationale "A longstanding article about an IT Services firm of questionable notability, created in mainspace after a draft had been rejected multiple times. The article describes a small company going about its business without indication of notability. Searches find occasional listings for their products (e.g. PredictBench) but nothing to demonstrate that notability has been attained.". An Admin noticed that a previous article instance had been deleted at PROD in 2015 and so declined the PROD, so I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as noted above. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and the material comparing its revenue to the average company revenue is rather pathetic Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:54, 10 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Aviation India

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

This is not an aviation company and a broker. Does not hold any AOC / NSOP as per DGCA India website. Promotional page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources found, article has a dead website as the only source. This appears to be a webpage for the company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 5 July 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!} 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Air (India)

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

As per DGCA website , no such charter company exists. Google search does not reveal anything. Even their own website does not claim that their have or had any AOC / NSOP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aircraft bearing registration VT-IAT shown on WP page belongs to State Government Training institute. Even the source cited does not claim the aircraft belongs to Spirit Air. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charter airlines are notable. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The issue is that there is no such airline as shown in official sources, not whether charter airlines are notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the page should be deleted. It seems like the page is based on some fake airline. When you go to the website of the airline they don't mention anything about commercial flights. They don't offer any commercial or even charter flights. The destinations list on the page is completely fake as well because most of those airports were never operational for flight operations. User:Yellow alligator

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jal Hans

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

No records on DGCA or independent sources found that this airline existed. Kindly review.. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be notable, but fails reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:51, 4 July 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 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Ready Records

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

Fails WP:GNG. Record store in Brooklyn, also apparently a label. No notability for either. Previously tagged, PRODed in 2016, nothing much has changed in notability since then. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search finds no reliable sources about it, and only a few sites at all, mainly vinyl websites and social media. Definitely fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Accepted at AfC on the basis of the following significant coverage: [3], [4], [5] ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and those sources do not constitute "significant coverage", two don't pass WP:RS and the other isn't an especially notable column in Vice. Overall article is WP:SOAP. Acous mana 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources Kvng listed. Only Brooklyn Magazine is reliable and gives significant coverage to the subject: 50 Third and 3rd has disclaimers in their T&C that implies no editorial review of articles (i.e., it's blog-quality material), and the Vice story covers the founder of the label, not the label itself. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 20 July 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 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AIRO Group

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

Aerospace company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE corporate articles about mergers, stock-market launches, etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources. Routine coverage. --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:16, 6 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosera Asset Management

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

promotional , and non-notable Fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bosera is a major firm in China. In my opinion there is significant coverage of Bosera in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the firm in english let alone in Chinese. The article definitely requires work to read less promotional and to add more citations, but should be kept. Seigerman (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 17 July 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Air Silencers

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

WP:PROMO article that just lists the company's products and relies for references on only industry press and routine announcements; therefore does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Contested WP:G11 from another editor but I think this is a more appropriate venue. FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Also just to be clear this is not promotional and if such aspersions are to be cast the COI noticeboard is the place not here, @Falcon Kirtaran: either retract the aspersion or take it to the COI noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definitely promotional in effect, though WP:NOTDIRECTORY would suffice. I am not accusing you of COI or even of spamming; I merely think this article does not meet the restrictive bar set forth in WP:NCORP specifically to prevent inclusion of articles that are for example just lists of products and transactions. FalconK (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what "promotional in effect" means, it is not a concept covered at WP:PROMO which was the very first thing you linked... If you merely think this article does not meet the restrictive bar set forth in WP:NCORP it seems odd to repeatedly cast promotional aspersions, no? PROMO and NCORP aren't related after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're listing products and describing why people might want to buy them, which is marketing, even if when written it wasn't intended as marketing. The vast majority of companies that make products that get reviewed and written about in trade press do not meet the notability bar, partially because the information to be found about them is all promotional. This means that even when you discard the interaction between Wikipedia and the flood of SEO and marketing professionals who tell companies to seek a Wikipedia article about themselves and the inherent promotional nature of that, an article written about such a company with information from available sources will tend to be promotional. FalconK (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"listing products and describing why people might want to buy them" isn't marketing and describes much of what we do on wikipedia because its much of what WP:RS do... If that was the case pages like Timeline of Apple Inc. products and List of Ford vehicles simply couldn't exist. I will accept that a reasonable person can interpret the article as failing our notability guidelines, what I can't accept is that the article is WP:PROMO because it meets none of the five listed categories. Unintentional marketing is not marketing for PROMO purposes and is an unavoidable fact with any wikipedia page involving a person, place, or thing regardless of how the content is presented (its mere existence is unintentional/accidental marketing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning weak keep. Being featured in American Rifleman and other stuff suggests industry recognition of some degree. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage for WP:NCORP --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article currently has NPOV issues, but the sources establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:37, 13 July 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 11:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Filmes

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

Non notable film production company. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not cover the criterion WP:GNG. I don`t notice significant coverage with reliable sources. --Bigneeerman (talk) 05:24, 18 July 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 11:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Globalance

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

basically promotional DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 2 July 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 11:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CARRO Group

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

entirely promotional DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 2 July 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 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzataxi

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

Part of mass translation from fi-wiki. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, with minimal sourcing online or in the article. The first article source is affiliated. The second seems to be routine business news about an acquisition, and I've tried to access it and bypass the paywall without success. Several weeks ago, I also asked the article creator here if they had access, with no reply except for further article/stub creation. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a mundane business, subsequently acquired by another firm operating in its area/sector. No evidence that it attained distinct notability; an WP:ATD could be a (brief) merge and redirect to Kotipizza, where this 2017 takeover is not mentioned but for which announcement-based coverage exists (e.g. [6]). AllyD (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There might be some coverage in older offline newspapers (online archives of Finnish stuff from the 90s are very limited), but we shouldn't keep on a sources might exist basis. Given how stubby this is, we won't lose much if we side on delete now and someone later chooses to recreate base on reliable sourcing they can find. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:24, 10 July 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 consensus is that insufficient sourcing that is not dependent on press releases and the like exists.. Deor (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentsquare

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is routine. scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. Slywriter (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple indepth reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability.Fabiobengario (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Wall Street Journal, VentureBeat and Forbes are all well-known, reliable sources. If you do a WP:BEFORE, there's even more coverage in the WSJ, as well as minor coverage about the impact of the company on society. This source mentions how the company was one of the tech unicorns recognized by Macron as part of his efforts to increase the number of tech businesses in France. Reviewers can Google them as part of a proper source review. I don't like having to ref stuff and WP:OVERCITE, but will add more if that's what it takes to close this. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:THREE references provided above, can you point to any "Independent Content" (see definition at WP:ORGIND) in those articles, especially in light of how similar they are to lots of others? There's really no chance that "Independent Content" between different publications all have the same content, facts and information. Plus, with hardly any effort we can see that in addition to the three sources you've provided, the same story was propagated around the same date by Crunchbase, Calcalistech, in4capital, bleucap and lots of others, not to mention the announcement on the company's own blog? Is it your position that they all contain "Independent Content"? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references are either churnalism, brief mentions or regurgitated announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:ORGCRIT, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. The VentureBeat (2021) source is related to a company announcement and largely based on an email from the company founder, with multiple grafs quoting his claims, followed by grafs that include "Contentsquare says" and "It claims". This type of source does not appear to support notability per WP:ORGIND, which includes, If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Similar but briefer dependent coverage is available from Forbes (2021), e.g. "Contentsquare chief executive and founder Cherki said" and "says Yanni Pipilis, managing partner at the SoftBank Vision Fund" forms the core of the article. I cannot access more than the preview of the WSJ (2021) coverage of the same announcement, but a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage WP:ORGDEPTH. In my online search for better sources, I have found a lot of press releases and Linkedin profiles. Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more corp-spam with virtually no meaningful coverage - funding announcements are about as MILL as it gets. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current sourcing passes WP:NCORP. I just added the two others Technotalk mentioned above mentioned above, including reports of notability in France. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One is funding news from press-release and the other one is a profile, with four lines of text, one of 26. That doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. The profile is primary and has no information in it. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The local.fr source has three sentences about the company: "This start-up has existed since 2012. It acts as a tool to allow website and app designers to monitor how their users behave while on their webpage/app. Contentsquare provides analytical information that can help to tailor websites to improve the digital experiences of users." The article is much more focused on Macron, the efforts of the government to promote start-ups, and its most recent promotion of a different company. Per WP:ORGDEPTH, inclusion in lists of similar organizations is an example of trivial coverage, and it also appears to be trivial because it is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It also appears to be uncritically-reported promotional content that is dependent on the French government, not an independent evaluation, survey, study, etc, by the article author. Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage added, from Luxury Daily, about a report the company issues that tracks billions of clicks on websites, and its impact. It's paywalled, but I can send you a PDF if you can't review it yourself. There's more than enough coverage for this to be a keep. @Praxidicae: What is spam? This is all independent coverage. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"What is spam" - a simple way to look that up would be google. But I think you're fully aware of what promo is. None of this is acceptable sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxury Daily article is marked "ARTICLE TOOLS SPONSOR", which is advertised as "Articles tool sponsor (88×31) on Web site: $2,000 per week" on the Luxury Daily About Us page, so it does not appear to be an acceptable source. Per WP:ADS, There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. There is additional information available on the guideline page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Praxidicae:, I should have been more clear. Of course I know what spam is, but I was asking if you could identify the spam sourcing in the article. I'm seeing a sudden big backlash from the community to my article creation, after having nothing deleted for 6 years, and want to make sure I comply with accepted sourcing guidelines, or it's all a waste of time. Nothing looks like spam or PR to me, so I was asking for your perspective. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Routine funding coverage which all suspiciously mirror a press release, paid advertisements, interviews, and the odd trivial mention do not contribute to the notability of a subject. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aoidh: Please link to a press release or a paid advertisement, as an example. That will help me understand which of these reliable sources should be banned on the reliable sources board so I don't keep using them. Rather than challenging them piecemeal in AfD after AfD, would it make more sense to try to build consensus to block them as reliable sources? That would seem to be more effective in the long term. I also don't get the aversion to interviews. I understand that a pure interview can be somewhat unreliable, but depending on the publication, it can be a sign of notability that the person was selected, right? Also, reporters base their coverage on interviews, but usually rewrite the info and compile info from different sources to do a fuller piece. When I have time I'll start a relevant discussion and ping you for your feedback. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your comment since this content was already discussed. The press release is mentioned in HighKing's comment above, the paid advertisement on Beccaynr's comment. The individual source for each isn't the problem, as any copy of a press release is a problem. Any advertisement is a problem. The websites themselves are not the problem, and there is already consensus that such content is problematic in regards to establishing notability, as codified in WP:ORGIND. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. Even if potentially notable, WP:TNT applies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wall Street Journal thinks it is a growing concern. If anything this should be draftified rather than deleted. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your back Lightburst, again making mistakes in your assumptions. I wish I'd known you were back, I would have taken you to the arbcom case. The wsj articles is from a press-release and as usual you ignore consensus and prevailing winds scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I would encourage you to strike your WP:PA. Please focus on the content not the editor. Lightburst (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out "mistakes in your assumptions" is not a personal attack, Lightburst. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, which WSJ piece are you basing that on? The ones in the article are just WP:ROUTINE announcements about funding rounds. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these are press releases compared with WSJ articles cited in this discussion:

Press release: Contentsquare Lands $500M Series E Investment Led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2 To Fuel Rapid Global Expansion and AI-Driven Digital Experience Innovation (BusinessWire, May 25, 2021): "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, today announces it has completed a $500 Million Series E funding round. The investment is led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2, which joins existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR, Canaan, Highland Europe, and funds and accounts managed by BlackRock — most of whom also participated in this round."
WSJ article cited above: SoftBank Leads $500 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 25, 2021): "Digital experience analytics company Contentsquare has received a $500 million investment led by SoftBank Group Corp.’s Vision Fund 2, bumping the technology company’s valuation up to $2.8 billion. The SoftBank fund will join existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR & Co., Canaan, Highland Europe and accounts managed by BlackRock Inc., most of which contributed to the latest funding round, according to the company."
Press release: Contentsquare Completes $190 Million in a Series D Round, Accelerating Innovation in Digital Experience Analytics (BusinessWire, May 19, 2020): "Contentsquare, the global leader in experience analytics, announced today a $190 million Series D funding round, bringing total funding to date to $310 million. This round is led by BlackRock’s Private Equity Partners team, who joins existing investors Bpifrance (through their Large Venture fund), Eurazeo Growth, Canaan, GPE Hermes, Highland Europe, H14 and KKR, most of whom participated in this round."
WSJ article cited above: BlackRock Leads $190 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 19, 2020): "Digital analytics company Contentsquare has collected $190 million in fresh funding in a Series D round led by BlackRock Inc.’s Private Equity Partners team. BlackRock joins existing investors, which include Bpifrance, Eurazeo Growth, Canaan Partners, Highland Europe, H14 SpA and KKR & Co., the company said."

Beccaynr (talk) 14:17, 10 July 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!} 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Biopharma

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

Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. PR, Press-releases. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article is far too detailed about funding and uses passing mentions but Bloomberg piece is significant coverage. Would like to see more like that but see potential. Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter the Bloomberg piece is an interview with the CEO of the subject company, which obviously fails WP:SIRS as it cannot be independent from the subject. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Brain freeze there and for some reason watching an interview was not triggering that it was an interview. Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All sources appear to fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIRS. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Fierce Biotech, Crain's and Baltimore Business Journal are all well-known, reliable sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fierce Biotech is based entirely on this PR announcement, fails ORGIND as it contains no "Independent Content". Crain's fails for the same reason as it is a summary of the announcement. BizJournals is a mere mention-in-passing because the article is actually about a different company (announcement), Vita Therapeutics, so fails CORPDEPTH. If you still believe these are good, please provide guideline-based reasoning below. For the first two, where's the "Independent Content" as per ORGIND and for the third, the in-depth information about the company as per CORPDEPTH? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. In regards to the sources presented above, the first link that TechnoTalk provided does not work because of the way it was formatted. I had to do some digging and found that this is the correct URL. This source Fierce Biotech is an extremely niche source that specifically covers BioTech-specific industry product and finance information. Per WP:AUD, such coverage does not contribute to notability in and of itself. This is based off of this press release, therefore does not contribute to notability as it is not an independent source. Finally we have this, which is absolutely trivial coverage. The article's subject is mentioned only once in passing and absolutely fails both WP:GNG's definition of significant coverage as well as the criteria laid out at WP:SIRS. So we have a niche source, a copy of a press release, and a trivial mention. That doesn't meet the threshold for notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I did review the other sources in the article itself and online, and there's plenty of interviews and more trivial mentions and such, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP per the analysis by Aoidh.4meter4 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others - this is garden variety corpspam with nothing in the way of truly independent sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the sources I'm seeing appear to be independent - I'm not seeing corpspam - what am I missing? I just Googled them and found another source, which I added. The company already launched another successful public company. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is the same kind of biotech financing specific source which is hyper-niche coverage that, per WP:AUD, "is not an indication of notability." Further it is based solely off of this press release, which makes it textbook churnalism and fails the independent sources criteria at WP:ORGIND. Even your own example is not an independent source, and launching another company is not an indication of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT, which states: The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. My search online for sources has found many press releases and material that is substantially based on such press releases, which is dependent coverage that cannot be used to support notability per WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Axios source in the article discusses the industry generally and when Cambrian Biopharma is mentioned, it is primarily "says James Peyer, the CEO of the anti-aging startup Cambrian Biopharma", "says Peyer", "says Peyer"; the article also includes quotes from other CEOs promoting their companies. The Wikipedia article also includes substantial content about funding, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage, along with other standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage that are used to develop this article. This company was founded in 2019, and it seems to be WP:TOOSOON to find much more than its own promotional efforts and routine coverage of its development at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company which goes beyond "coverage" in "reliable sources". Since the topic is a company/organization, we 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. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (so that's at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". With the reliance on funding announcements in mind, "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 - mainly funding announcements which are replicated in dozens of other "sources" containing versions of the exact same information and quotes, mentions-in-passing, etc. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 6 July 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. Star Mississippi 14:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphnet

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

No reliabler sources provided to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost weekly coverage in Digital Health and substantial analysis in the Financial Times. Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Software, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenot enough independent reliable coverage for WP:NCORP. However it looks not so bad and there is a good chance it could be updated with better RS --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FT is both independent and detailed and its a significant player in the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Financial Times website is a reliable source to prove WP:GNG. Other sources also look mostly reliable. 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sourcing seems to just scrape over the line. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 15 July 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 03:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Confederation of Co-operative Savings and Credit Associations

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

I'm mindful of systemic bias issues at play, but cannot identify any path to notability for this association. I don't think it's a language issue, they just don't seemed to have attained much attention. Passing mentions in Google scholar such as this just stem back to their own materials, so it's not independent and the site is on a blacklist so RS issues as well. Star Mississippi 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Africa. Star Mississippi 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 15 July 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. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structura Gallery

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

No indication of notability by way of a WP:BEFORE search, and the current sourcing. Only mentions of the gallery or listings of shows, or mentions of artists who exhibited, but could find nothing ABOUT the gallery itself, certainly no SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, and Companies. Netherzone (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles about galleries are often in a challenging position in that such coverage as exists tends to be about individual exhibitions, which fails to provide the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. In respect of this private gallery in Sofia, the article text is making no claim of notability, and the best that I have found is this 2020 MuseumsNow interview with the owner, which is interesting but insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 8 July 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. Consensus for delete. Arguments for keep have provided sources, but the consensus is that these do not provide significant coverage. A review of the provided sources seems to confirm that the company is mentioned in a trivial way, if at all. TigerShark (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGWHyperloop

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Coverage presented is not indepth/independent/extensive. Half the sources are generic hype about hyperloop in India and elsewhere from the past five years, others are company generated (interviews etc). There is not one shred of notability here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote this article. Primary reasons were the fact that the company was first from Asia to be laying down the foundation of a Hyperloop as highlighted by Asia Times [7]. Also came across a number of articles mainly between 2017-18 detailing the company's proposed corridor project by notable sources including The Financial Times [8], Business Insider [9], Zee Business [10], The Hindu [11], Firstpost [12], an IOTS interview by The Tribune [13]. On revisiting the sources today, also came across a few notable, non-English, news sources such as Jagran Prakashan Limited [14][15]. Full articles on Outlooker and YourStory. Furthermore in Wissenschaftsrat's 2020 Hyperloop Report [16], NASSCOM's 2017 Startup Report [17], further features & mentions in thesis and researches.[18][19][20][21][22]. There's enough coverage by reliable sources for both WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth discussion of the company that gets to the level of WP:NCORP. It's all passing mentions and routine announcements. The second ref in the article, which is allegedly verifying the mere existence of the company, does not even mention it – that source is talking about the Virgin hyperloop, not about DGW. If the line is ever built (and there is no sign that anything is going to happen any time soon) then the line might be a notable transportation system deserving an article, but that does not mean that this company ever will be. SpinningSpark 15:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spinningspark's arguments; the sources don't actually talk about DGW in-depth or even at all, and are more about hyperloops in general. In the article, source 1 has a one-paragraph description; source 8 has nothing I can see. Applying common sense I'd also note that companies on hyperloops are going to be subject to the same relentless coverage as cryptocurrencies and similar fads, so I'd expect much more coverage than this to qualify for an article. Ovinus (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specific sources can be changed or removed. However, the company finds its mentions and coverage in multiple sources including a book, papers and of news outlets (WP:NEWSORG). As for its mentions coming through what is being defined as "generic" hyperloop articles. I'd like to point out that there is no working system based on this technology today, so barring controversies, any such companies CIP Arrivo, TransPod, Hyperloop TT, pass notability only because they worked on this technology. Confirmations from publications like Asia Times [1] that this was the first company in Asia to be working on the project sets it apart from cryptocurrency projects or companies. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several news sources that have provided more than just non-trivial coverage to the company,[23][24][25] and even from a book by a reliable publisher.[26] Subject meets WP:GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup, and it lacks independent sources that establish the company's notability. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is about a weak WP:NPOV or an attempt of WP:PROMOTION, I believe a Template:Promotional tone should be a good start. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources by Azuredivay verifies the subject is notable and meets GNG. I don't see any clear evidence of "promotional writeup". The article is a small stub it can remain like this. Editorkamran (talk) 17:37, 12 July 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 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

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

After multiple declines of Draft:RouteNote, the article was created on the mainspace. No indication of WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Brief mentions in Billboard and The Indian Express are not enough to establish notability. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tagged the previous version of this mainspace article, one of which was that it was substantially similar to a third-party wiki. While this probably isn't copyright violation since the source is CC-BY-SA 3.0, I should note the continued similarity between the current version of this article as well as the draft to that same website. Someone should look into this. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 09:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed significantly and confidently fails WP:CORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real SIGCOV to speak of, so fails CORP by a significant margin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources. Fabiobengario (talk) 06:46, 3 July 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!} 23:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-Viktan

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

No sources provided. Terrible sourcing. Notability is extremely questionable. IgorTurzh (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article was sourced to a WordPress blog. It should be noted that the article's title is incorrect. For those trying to find sources online the correct title is Soyuz-Victan, not Soyuz-Viktan. The company website made some quite extraordinary claims and I can verify that the company did exist and according to press releases did sell a fair amount of alcohol. But outside of press releases, non-independent sources, and passing mentions like this one, I can't find anything supporting the article. With what I was able to find online I have to conclude that the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I say this with the caveat that I speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian and I suspect that sources may be available in those languages. If someone can find sources in those languages and they believe those sources show notability please ping me here and I will be more than happy to reassess based on new information. - Aoidh (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I appreciate your research. It's what I ment when nominated the article. IgorTurzh (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Sourcing is poor and a Google search doesn't turn up anything else. I can't even get the English page to come up, but since they are reportedly bankrupt I wouldn't expect it to be maintained. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:25, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phreesia

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert, no WP:NCOPR nor WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- is not notable yet.WikiDidi99 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is listed. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion even though there is an apparent consensus to Delete based on the recent, clear previous decision to "Keep" this article and the relative newness of the editors participating here so far. I'd like to see some veteran AFD folks offer their opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bash7oven, What is NCOPR? Jacona (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona, I believe he meant WP:CORP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A not so glowing review in WaPo here [27] and on NPR here: [28], I think it's GNG. not the best coverage of the company. More than enough mentions in GScholar for the company, we'd have to really do a deep dive to find a piece there to use as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly both the WaPo article mentioned above, this case study by HBS and this SWOT Analysis created in conjuction with Havard Business Review appear to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 18 July 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!} 22:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net Health

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

Not notable. Does'nt meet either WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. Trivial announcements and coverage in too narrow media outlets Bash7oven (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:CORPDEPTH fail, i.e hiring and acquisitions. No effective coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. There's certainly routine coverage that can verify that the company exists, but there's nothing showing notability and even the article itself doesn't aspire to any claims of notability, it's very much a routine "here's a business, it exists and people work here" kind of article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see, @MrsSnoozyTurtle: PRODed last June this article. Maybe they will be interested to comment here. --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Morpho achilles, thank you for the ping. To avoid any appearance of WP:CANVASSING, I won't be !voting here. I'll just note that there have been no significant improvements to the article since I Prodded it back then for similar reasons. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 6 July 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. TigerShark (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aptean

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

Not notable. Advert, does'nt meet either WP:NCOPR nor WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leaning towards keep; seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks like advertising with no independent reliable links. Doesn`t cover the criterion WP:NCOPR.--Bigneeerman (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails WP:GNG in that there are no third-party sources that are independent of the subject that have any significant coverage of the subject. The article especially fails WP:ORGCRIT's stricter interpretation of notability. Article's sources are all primary sources, republished press releases, or are not about this article's subject. The article fails WP:NCORP outright. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 19 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping An Good Doctor

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

The availabe sources are not meeting the criteria of Reliable Independent sources, thus the page does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/OTCMKTS/PANHF/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
11/24/2021	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	Downgrade	Overweight ➝ Underweight			View Rating Details
9/16/2021	The Goldman Sachs Group	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral			View Rating Details

Additional sources

Dhargalkar, Kaustubh (2020). It's Logical: Innovating Profitable Business Models. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-93-5388-401-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "Ping An created an online platform called Good Doctor in August 2014. ... It began as an online service where anyone would get doctor consultations for free. The point to be noted here was that the users of the Good Doctor platform were not Ping An's customers. In April 2015, the company launched the Ping An Good Doctor app. By providing the healthcare services, the platform generated tremendous traction. By December 2018, the app had 265 million registered users with 54.7 million monthly active users (MAU). All these services are offered free to the registered users. ... Ping An has used (is using and will use) the Good Doctor platform to expand its footprint in multiple domains, thus creating revenue streams which they would not have imagined back in 2013. In fact, if you examine the platform closely, you will notice that, on the platform, there are multiple competitors of Ping An's core business. So in effect, every time a competitor makes a sale on the Good Doctor platform, Ping An too makes money in the form of a small commission."
Fleisch, Eligar; Franz, Christoph; Herrmann, Andreas (2021). The Digital Pill: What Everyone Should Know about the Future of Our Healthcare System. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-1-78756-676-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "The "One-minute Clinic" referred to by Ms Liu [a resident of the Chinese city of Wuzhen near Shanghai] is the most recent and radical innovation from Chinese health insurance provider Ping An Insurance and its subsidiary Ping An Good Doctor, which was founded in 2015. In essence, the company consists of an app that lets users make an appointment with a doctor. In the case of minor illnesses, a video or phone consultation is also offered. Ping An Good Doctor not only covers the doctor's fee, but also the costs of prescription drugs and treatments. Subscribers also have the option of sharing information with other patients in forums. One particularly lucrative market for Ping An Good Doctor is Chinese citizens who are looking for medical treatment abroad. The company establishes contacts with physicians outside of China and organizes the necessary travel."
Kim, W. Chan; Mauborgne, Renee; Ji, Mi (2021-02-24). "Ping An Good Doctor: Creating a Nondisruptive Solution for China's Healthcare System". Harvard Business Publishing. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The case study overview notes: "This case describes how the Chinese internet healthcare company Ping An Good Doctor created a nondisruptive solution for addressing a key challenge in China's healthcare industry ..."
Yeung, Karen (2018-01-31). "Ping An's 'Good Doctor' wins Hong Kong IPO approval despite losses". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "Ping An Healthcare and Technology, China’s largest health care and online medical platform, has been accepted by the Hong Kong stock exchange for an initial public offering (IPO), despite making hefty losses for the past two years. ... Launched in April 2015, Ping An Healthcare offers online medical services and has 192.8 million registered users, with network coverage including 3,100 hospitals and 7,500 pharmacy outlets. It was China’s largest internet health care platform in terms of average monthly active users and daily average online consultations in 2016. ... "
Dunkley, Emma (2022-03-26). "Ping An healthcare unit closes HK's biggest IPO this year". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2022-03-26. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "Ping An Good Doctor, a Chinese healthcare and technology company, has raised HK$8.77bn (US$1.1bn) in the largest Hong Kong initial public offering this year, the first in a string of large tech listings set to come to the market this year. ... Leon Qi, an analyst at Daiwa, said he was “unsurprised” by the group’s losses given its rapid expansion in recent years in terms of customers acquired and distribution of products."
Staeritz, Felix; Torrence, Simon (2020). Fightback: How to win in the digital economy with platforms, ventures and entrepreneurs. London: LID Publishing. ISBN 978-1-911671-81-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "It has used all this tech prowess to create a range of groundbreaking start-ups, including the world's largest online healthcare platform, Ping An Healthcare and Technology (generally known as Ping An Good Doctor), which provides more than 650,000 consultations a day and is currently valued at $5 billion in its own right. This was a shrewd move, combining technology wit hsocial trends ... which will ensure a constantly increasing demand for medical services. The company's Ping An Good Doctor app handles hospital appointments for 290 million registered users, more than one fifth of the country's population ..."
Schulte, David; Sun, Dean; Shemakov, Roman (2021). The Digital Transformation of Property in Greater China. Singapore: World Scientific. pp. 122, 132. ISBN 978-981-123-379-1. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes on page 122: "Ping An Good, a healthcare portal with 30 million-plus monthly active users whose recent IPO raised US$1.1 billion in Hong Kong; and Ping An Healthcare And Technology, a mobile app for booking hospital visits used by 800 million customers across 70% of cities in China."
The book notes on page 132: "Currently Ping An Healthcare and Technology has a 70% share of China's telehealth market. Over the past decade, it has spent more than 20 billion yuan on healthcare technology, and it has pledged to spend another 30 billion yuan in the next five years in light of the ..."
Ng, Eric (2020-02-12). "Ping An Good Doctor, China's largest health care platform, reports jump in users amid coronavirus, smaller than expected annual loss". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-20. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "The company, a five-year-old unit of Chinese giant Ping An Insurance, posted a net loss of 733.86 million yuan (US$105 million) for 2019, down from a loss of 913 million yuan the previous year. It was also lower than the 872 million yuan average loss estimated by nine analysts Bloomberg polled. The analysts expected its pre-tax net loss to narrow to 620 million yuan this year, before it turns a profit of 40.8 million yuan in 2021."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ping An Good Doctor, formerly known as Ping An Healthcare and Technology (Chinese: 平安健康保险股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great analysis @Cunard Morpho achilles (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources found, but not added to the article yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable in medicine sphere. If no one wants to dig deeper, just read the above arguments. It has minimal but at the same time significant coverage in ft, wsj, etc. It was among the largest unicorn startup companies in China, with a valuation of approximately US 7.5 $billion. Further analysis would be helpful here. --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard's sources. And those are just English-language sources – searching in Chinese finds others[29][30]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:01, 17 July 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 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuesoft

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

Definitely lacks reliable independent media coverage needed for private companies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. 11 years since the Notability tag appeared, and no improvements so far Bash7oven (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find evidence of notability.. Also questionable neutrality. Femke (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also could not find any sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 8 July 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 redirect to Allscripts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DbMotion

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

Not enough coverage in RS according to WP:NCORP Bash7oven (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Pennsylvania. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allscripts who acquired them in 2013. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allscripts per above.Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 20 July 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 stronger arguments from the delete votes edge out the numerical parity. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrDoctor

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of reliable independent media coverage needed for private companies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Bash7oven (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Software, and England. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the Health Service Journal is both independent and detailed as is that on gov.uk. This is a very substantial supplier of services to the NHS. Deletion would damage our coverage of the NHS. There is quite detailed coverage on the websites of many NHS hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite a lot of independent coverage. Bigwig7 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough independent and reliable coverage for WP:NCORP --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a second nomination. the first one had no consensus per @Northamerica1000: --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Suggest review of sources, as to whether they genuinely meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the company.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments above all parrot those used in the original AfD - 'There's loads of coverage' - but there's not. Let's remember the higher bar set for WP:NCORP, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" and bear in mind that the very impressive Forbes article is from 'Sites', user generated with no editorial oversight, so not RS. Trade magazine/website 'Digital Health' happily runs NHS/DrDr announcements and the rest of our coverage here is stories quoting DrDr execs - or NHS announcements using DrDr as a proof point. Are we looking at "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"??? We are not, we are looking at PR pieces, company announcements, incidental commentary and routine funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NHS announcements - and there are lots of them - are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. They arent marketing and public relations professionals. They are NHS managers explaining to patients how they use the product. The GOV.UK Digital Marketplace gives a very long and detailed exposition of the system. That seems a pretty objective quality source. This is now a significant contributor to NHS services and that makes it notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The various references and other sources (those that are not PRIMARY and pass RS) have the same thing in common - they all rely entirely on interviews/quotations, announcements/PR and supplemented with descriptions and other information provided by the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, nor a Yellow Pages. Here's a brief review of the sources as requested:
- Forbes "sites" is not deemed reliable as per WP:FORBES, fails WP:RS
- SBRI Healthcare and gov.uk are just listings and PR provided by the company, not Independent, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- CNBC gives the company a brief mention at the end of this article, fails CORPDEPTH
- Wokingham Paper is a blog fails WP:RS and the article is based on an announcement, fails ORGIND
- These found in DigitalHealth, and another, the Nursing Times, the Express, another in Digital Health, and another, Mobile Health News, and another and finally again, Digital Health News are all based on PR and announcements.
- This from National Health Executive gets its information from the NHS who are customers - not Independent, fails ORGIND
- This on Sky is a small profile under the banner of "Technology startups are gaining traction in the NHS" but the small quote is from the company CEO and the single sentence is nothing more than a mention-in-passing. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- Last is TrustPilot, fails WP:RS

Perhaps TOOSOON but to date, we can only see company-originated and investor/customer-originated noise, this is insufficient to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article in the Health Service Journal ^[1] is both detailed and objective. Gov.uk has a very substantial analysis of the service. The Digital Marketplace is as objective as you get. A great deal of NHS resource has been devoted to it. I dont see where you think objective information would come from if not from customers. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Recovery Watch: The great follow-ups revolution". Health Service Journal. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.

I think there is a fundamental misconception here. Its not the company which is notable. Its the product - the software. That is why there are explanations of it on the website of at least 40 NHS Trusts. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article literally starts with the immortal words "DrDoctor is a booking and patient interaction software company based in London." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But that doesnt necessarily mean that is what makes the topic notable. We could recast the article. Most of the content is about the software. Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are there any particular sources about the software (reviews say?) that you feel meets NCORP? The fact that it appears on the website of at least 40 NHS trusts doesn't work on its own as they are customers and therefore connected to the topic company and not Independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 24 July 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!} 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Healthcare

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

not yet notable-- does not meet NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaning towards keep, as it seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:24, 6 July 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, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Wikibusines spam. MER-C 17:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like spam, however among other medical companies here at AfD deeply focused on software medical services, I found it's the one that produces physical devices that are already in use. Further analysis would be helpful here. And yes, there are issues with the amount of availabe sources. For example this link: https://drlogy.com/hospitals/robin-healthcare-solutions-23392 fails to verify the fact of establishing the entity in 2015 in Berkeley, CA, the USA --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NYT Article from nearly three years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/technology/automatic-speech-transcription-ai.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.28.60 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails WP:NCORP - coverage is routine announcements, the bar for NCORP is higher, "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP, most references do not contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 18 July 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!} 02:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shokz

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Company appears to OEM Chinese product, no significant coverage, no notability in evidence. Product reviews are majority of sources, article reads like a product catalogue. Tagged as such, too, since Jan 2022. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I put this page together after researching a number of their products and there wasn't any other place on the internet that brought all of that information together. I figured Wikipedia was the perfect place to consolidate some of that information so that others have a place to reference in a single repository. When I need to know tech specs of a mobile phone or processor family for instance, I often seek out wikipedia directly since it combines all of that information in a single place. While the article definitely needs some more support, I don't believe that deleting it is the right route. It's been some time since I've worked on this page but I just did a search for bone conduction headphones and Shokz/Aftershokz pops up in all of the top hits, mostly in "best bone conduction headphone" type articles so the headphones as well as their development history I believe has relevance. Devilsbane (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also note that non-review sources are mundane corporation moving/articles based off of press releases. Can't find anything significant myself. Defense above does not engage with WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources seem to be mostly made up of a mix of paid-for articles and press releases. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:57, 7 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wellness Forever

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

Indian pharma retail company, fails WP:NORG; WP:GNG - coverage of routine funding rounds, company announcements. No indepth coverage, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 10 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaearth

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

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. All of the references appear to be routine coverage and press announcements. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Haryana, and India. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is genuine and doesn't seem to be a promotional article. I think it needs more editing in terms of the information written other than that, the deletion request should be removed. Thekaransingha (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 10:10, 4 July 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conica AG

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Notability and third-party tag placed. Previously prodded. References are primary, company info, pr, success stories. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really, really don't understand why the PROD was declined here. As per my PROD: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Coverage presented here is company releases, website, win stories." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage presented here ist not exclusively "company releases, website, win stories". Onel5969 has already noted that SRF is a good source and Rosguill has confirmed that this is a borderline case. After that even more sources have been added to the article. @Alexandermcnabb: I tried to reach out to you via your talk page to discuss the (German) sources, as you may not understand them all, but you have ignored this for over 7 days now. Your vote on the other hand arrived only 5 minutes after the nomination (including the time of writing) - as if you had been sitting on scope_creep's lap ... What happened to WP:TALKFIRST? Best Respicefinem (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can go through the sources. scope_creep^Talk 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Respicefinem, I missed your message on my talk - it's been busy. I'm not generally a fan of discussing AfDs on my talk - that's why we have this here space here. Let's unpick some of these sources - for instance, let's take the promotional-sounding statement in the lede, " In the field of molded plastic track surfaces for athletics, the Swiss company is considered the global market leader." That's sourced to three references. The first is the WP page of the Swiss Athletics Federation, a DAB as it happens. The second is an Italian directory with company submitted content. And the third is an article posted on the ICIS business information site derived from Conica press information and an interview with Conica’s strategic manager for sports. The next three references, it's worth noting, are all derived from Conica's own website (as, indeed, are eight of the references provided). When we add press releases, interviews with company representatives and the like, we have a total of 34 references standing up a 600 word article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." It remains my view that the Conica article does not reach that starndard. I do try not to sit on scope_creep's lap; I'm not that sort of boy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first 12 references:
Ref 1 Company landing page Non-rs.

Ref 2 BODENSTÄNDIGE EFFIZIENZ Fails WP:AUD and is non-rs.

Ref 3 Wikipedia ref. An illegal ref.

Ref 4 Profile Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 5 Olympic flooring boosts athletes’ performance Discussion of Conica products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 6 CONICA achieves record sales and sets the course for the future Company press-release. Non-RS

Ref 7 Company page Non-RS

Ref 8 Company page Non-RS

Ref 9 New track partner for European Athletics Association Press-release

Ref 10 The Conica Group Becomes the Official Track Partner of the European Athletics Association (EA) from 2023 on! Press-release

Ref 11 Das grünste Stadion der Welt "Conica has been developing careers and innovative seamless flooring solutions based on polyurethane and epoxy resins for 40 years. " PR. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 12 Hungarian Athletics Federation and Conica AG sign cooperation agreement Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

This article is complete native advertising. It is complete in brochure like quality. There is not a single redeeming feature. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some of this analysis may be correct, the conclusion is not.

First of all, Ref 3 is not illegal, it is simply WP:OFFLINE. Maybe you have confused the publisher's H:WIKILINK with the source citation.

I would not classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of WP:RSSELF, WP:RS/SPS, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though WP:SECONDARY is preferred, WP:PRIMARY is basically not all bad for specific facts and certainly not illegal.

The main sources that speak without doubt for keeping the article are following your list, e.g.

Ref 16 Schaffhauser Nachrichten [de], Daily Newspaper

Ref 19 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 20 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 22 SWI, swissinfo.ch is the international unit of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC),

I, for one, would be a bit more cautious with the terms "complete" and "not a single one" if I am to judge the book by its cover (and only some of the pages) ... The article can certainly be improved, but there is no need to delete it. Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves its notable. Using Wikipedia for a reference is illegal per policy. Your article is full of PR, Press-releases, routine coverage. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why do you falsely claim that an illegal source was used, even though I explained to you where your misinterpretation lies? Please at least try to read the arguments of the discussion participants before restating your own. Your personal opinion does not become more correct just because you keep repeating it. With this attitude, a discussion is very tiresome and doesn't lead any further. Let's wait and see how others judge this case. Thank you for your understanding! Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19 and 20 are press-releases. Ref 22 is a long description of company product at a Letzigrund Stadium and fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview with the company. scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Swiss sources here – which are by definition neutral and independent. Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The national provenance of a source has no bearing on its neutrality or independence. That's just silly. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source added (Ref 6), so the order of points discussed here has changed a bit. Respicefinem (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a passing mention really. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (Ref 3) added, which mixes up the order a bit further ... Best Respicefinem (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP: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.

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. I believe this is the point that Respicefinem is missing above when he claims "Swiss" sources are "independent". We don't just look at the publisher, we also look closely at the *content* to determine independence.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and this topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe the point is that you (and Alexandermcnabb) are missing when Respicefinem is joking above. In Germany the phrase "as neutral as Switzerland" is a figure of speech with an ironic touch. My deepest apologies if this wasn't obvious and inappropriate. Couldn't resist ...

Ref 3 (first paragraph, second half and second paragraph) is about the company
Ref 4 is a double-page article in the print edition (WP:OFFLINE, rem WP:AGF) exclusively about the company
Ref 5 (published in the home country of Conica's largest competitor, Mondo) is about the company
Ref 21 (even in the title) is about the company
Ref 24 (second half) is about the company

Overall, this article has more and better sources than most of the SMEs here. I see no reason not to keep it and improve it further. Best Respicefinem (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Respicefinem: Your only allowed one indication of a keep or delete, so I've removed your bolding. Also that argument is in the list of arguments not give. Notability is based on coverage and each article is indepdent when it comes to Afd, so it is a redundant argument. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the notability is not given is a repeated argument of yours, but that is still predominantly your personal evaluation of the sources. I see it differently.

@Sandstein: Perhaps you, as a native speaker of Schwiizerdütsch, can assess some of the sources a bit more closely? Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in the topic, sorry. Sandstein 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in agreement with what User:scope_creep has said above. The article's sources certainly establish the company's existence, but the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH is considerably higher than that. User:Respicefinem's analysis is unfortunately not in line with those requirements; for example, "ref 5" is written just to promote the company and is therefore not an independent or reliable source. And so forth. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 24 July 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 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoop (platform)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; all of the references are press releases, and it looks like the only reason it's getting this much press is because the founders were OnlyFans executives. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another crypto/NFT token article, this one is non-notable as well, sources only mention the platform due to where the founders used to work, more name drops and tangential coverage about the platform itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article meets WP:GNG guidelines and has plenty of news coverage. It was created by the founders of OnlyFans, a really notable website and company. To say that Zoop is another NFT or crypto platform is not an valid reason to have it deleted. Also, it is actually not an NFT collection. It is a platform and app for trading card cards, supported by blockchain technology that aims to create 3D digital cards of celebrities to be traded and use in-app and in games between users. Also they have Techcrunch coverage https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/26/onlyfans-founder-crypto-debut-influencer-trading-cards/ , coverage by Axios https://www.axios.com/2022/06/21/former-onlyfans-ceo-unveils-his-next-act , etc. Themaxtiger (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blockchain is NFT my friend. Oaktree b (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Tech Crunch article is only a paragraph long and Axios is either and interview or a press release. Tech Crunch is not a terribly reliable source per here:[31] and the Axios one isn't a third-party source. Oaktree b (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are PR fluff, don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. All I'm seeing are announcements and mentions that the founders have a connections with the Onlyfans company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to me researches, the article needs to be removed. The article is full PR spam - WP:ADPROMO. --Mestrossino (talk) 09:06, 10 July 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. Procedural keep with the nominator being a sock and low participation, I'm going to close this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acropoliis Entertainment

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

~~No in-depth coverage found to satisfy WP:NCORP. Search hits all contain only passing mentions in articles about the shows they've produced. Hemantha (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, India, and West Bengal. Hemantha (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per numerous shows it created. --Bash7oven (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC) *Can you link to sources which pass WP:NCORP? The argument that notable works makes the creator notable, is valid for persons; not for companies. Note the line in NCORP which says Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. Hemantha (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The production house has made many award winning Bengali films and TV soaps being broadcast in India and Bangladesh. Also, passes WP:GNG. 150.107.146.154 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FanCode

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

No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)</> — Lorenzo the great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV per the significant mainstream coverage from the sources. Most of the sources are regarded as reliable and collectively appear to meet the criteria for notability.Akevsharma (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but WP:MILL, PR spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funding rounds, funding rounds, announcements and funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have a look at the source analysis table.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akevsharma
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dream11-launches-ad-free-multi-sport-aggregator-platform-fancode-119042500907_1.html	Major national business daily	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/how-fancode-is-building-a-onestop-destination-for-sports-lovers/76425/1	Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dream11-launches-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/articleshow/69045506.cms	The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation	Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG	✔ Yes
https://m.economictimes.com/news/sports/dream11-launches-multi-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/amp_articleshow/69042709.cms	Major business focused national daily	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is met and this goes well beyond the routine coverage based on the source analysis done by Akevsharma. It is indeed difficult to accept that a company with 50 million customers falls under WP:MILL. How is it even possible that these sources published by the leading national medias falls under PR spam? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - your thoughts about this article and FanCode's involvement in that fake tournament. Forgive my suspicions – but claims of 50 million customers when the published number is 20 million customers and a $50 million investment makes me wonder, as does the fact that the nom +2 socks were recently discovered. I don't think WP should be used to promote startups or the shady activity surrounding it, so KUDOS to Girth Summit for his diligence in catching it. Atsme 💬 📧 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a source to assist in establishing notability? There's no in-depth details about the company in the article so fails CORPDEPTH. Not sure what you mean by the company's "involvement" in the fake tourney - they were tricked/scammed. Happens to a lot of companies. You also mention that you don't think WP should be used to "promote" companies - absolutely, WP is not a platform for promotion of any company or topic. Again though, I'm not seeing any reason to side-swipe the topic company over this. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a reliable source (WP:TOI) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey ChristinaNY, whay are you looking at WP:INDEPENDENT when NCORP is the applicable guideline? Check out WP:ORGIND which also include a definition for "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with PRAXIDICAE, and will add that I'm surprised this article wasn't a G11. WP is being inundated with these types of submissions. Look at the article and the sources - the bulk of cited sources are nothing more than marketing promotion under a thin veil. For example, read the Forbes India (updated May 30, 2022) source's headline: How FanCode is building a one-stop destination for sports lovers - the source writes about this start-up company (2019) and new software - And that’s exactly what the FanCode founders—Yannick Colaco and Prasana Krishnan—have set out to do: Build a digital destination for sports fans. It's unproven hype & marketing at this point in time, WP:CRYSTAL. It's a step beyond vaporware, so let it incubate and when it becomes notable and widespread beyond marketing hype, we can consider inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Atsme for this better picture regarding Forbes. The first thing I noticed was this source from Forbes. I didnt had a second thought because Forbes (written by its staff) is considered a reliable source in enwiki. Now I understood how manipulating these sometimes can be. WP:CORPDEPTH is very tricky and confusing in may aspcets. HighKing, I have couple of question for you. I had read somewhere that notability can be established by combining the sources to get SIGCOV. Is'nt that applicable here? The second one is regarding WP:GNG. If a topic meets GNG, does it need to meet SNG too? Take this as an example itself. I think notability might be bordeline looking upon GNG. Regarding CORPDEPTH, Im having some second thoughts after seeing Atsme's opinion. Let me go through some past lengthy AFD after which I will consider changing my opinion. Meanwhile, I hope Highking can give me a clear picture for me. Akevsharma (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akevsharma, you asked two questions - first one, if notability can be established by combining sources. As per WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below .... Second one, is it an either/or situation for GNG *or* SNG. Some editors (often after it has been shown that a topic fails an SNG :-) argue that because WP:N says a topic is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, this allows for an interpretation whereby a topic may fail an appropriate SNG but still be notable because it "passes GNG". When it comes to NCORP though, NCORP doesn't actually add or remove anything from GNG but provides clarification and examples and urges editors to apply a strict interpretation on sourcing. I would wager that when you say "borderline looking upon GNG", you are in effect attempting to apply a wooly interpretation of "Independent of the subject" and in effect dilute or even exclude the ORGIND "Independent Content" clarification .. as a guess. In general, consensus is that NCORP (and GNG) can be ignored as per WP:IAR in exceptional circumstances - I don't think this is one of those. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Two of the accounts that have !voted keep are in fact socks of the nominator. I have struck through their comments. Don't ask me why they are socking to oppose their own nomination. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. The source assessment table prepared by User:Akevsharma is erroneous; the Forbes India article is not independent because it relies pretty much exclusively on the company's founders for information. The Times of India article is the same; it's essentially a press release. FalconK (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sports related company that is often in the news and seems to have decent coverage in news sources including Hindi publications which nobody has mentioned here. Appears to pass basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Some citations includes quotes from people related with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and there is enough depth of coverage. Silentone1995 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forbes has ample coverage. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states you have to pass either the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.202.140.48.42 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is, for lack of a better word garbage. It isn't an RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have got reliable and independent source which inreturn helps to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Poppified ^talk 17:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source is based on routine company announcements or otherwise not independent. It's telling that nobody has been able to answer the question posed above: Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching one of the few sources and the fact checking in it [32]. As part of its sports data and statistics offering, FanCode provides access to information and data on sports leagues, teams and players for sports fans and fantasy sports users. This includes match previews, venue details, pitch reports, weather forecasts, player performances and post-match analysis. It also has about 20 experts on-board across sports categories to provide data and predictions through a detailed analysis of players and teams, supplemented by video representation, infographics, and even blogs as official authors. Since the launch in 2019, FanCode claims to garner over 15 million users. It has launched interactive live streaming of matches with multimedia commentary, live scores, news on the sports industry across the globe, bite-sized video content like match highlight packages, chat shows with sports personalities in a new-age format, fantasy sports research and expert opinions. Here is one hindi sources of the many [33].Silentone1995 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 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. MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelogica

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the page. It seems to me that it meets the primary criteria in WP:NCORP: there is substantial coverage of the subject (whole articles about it, sources are cited in the page, e.g. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]) in multiple reliable sources completely independent of the subject and of each other, such as Zero Hora, Exame, O Globo and Endeavor_(non-profit) (see aforementioned links). The coverage spans at least 4 years (2019-2022). Seems enough? Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is completely routine and fails various parts of WP:NCORP. For example the first ref is an interviews, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND. The refs are woeful for this startup. It is not coverage, its routine press-release fodder. The rest are the same including the non-rs blog. scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The first link is not an interview, although it contains interview questions. The other links are not press releases by the subject of the article, they are independent articles on national newspapers and national magazines. The "blog" one is a specialized column in a newspaper, if that doesn't count well there are various other articles... Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - company seems to meet NCORP; the article is reliably sourced to multiple independent publications. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chiswick Chap, I note that you don't explicitly comment on whether the sources contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and instead only refer to "functional independence". Can you take another look? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, seems to fail WP:NCORP as it stands. scope_creep's source assessment is correct in that the sources presented so far are either not independent or trivial. I did look for better sources, and while i did not find WP:SIGCOV, there are enough mentions in reliable sources for me to believe that this is a potentially notable company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What ones exactly? Please present them so we can evaluate them per WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that I don't believe that this meets WP:NCORP yet, but it seems to have more legs to stand on than the standard crypto start-up. There is this educational text book that uses the company's data throughout.^[1] I couldn't see anything in the preview but I would expect there to be some elaboration around the source of the data. There is this paper that evaluates the company's software,^[2] and there is this paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is based on data from the company.^[3] Not WP:SIGCOV but enough to suggest potential. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eduardo Koiti Matsura (2020). Comprar Ou Vender? (in Brazilian Portuguese). Saraiva Educação S.A. ISBN 9788557173415.
^ Stoiber, Christina; Ceneda, Davide; Wagner, Markus; Schetinger, Victor; Gschwandtner, Theresia; Streit, Marc; Miksch, Silvia; Aigner, Wolfgang (March 2022). "Perspectives of visualization onboarding and guidance in VA". Visual Informatics. 6 (1): 68–8. doi:10.1016/j.visinf.2022.02.005.
^ da Silva, Roberto; Zembrzuski, Marcelo; Correa, Fabio C.; Lamb, Luis C. (1 December 2010). "Stock markets and criticality in the current economic crisis". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 389 (23). Elsevier: 5460–5467. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references in the article and the ones above:
Ref 1: Linkedin. Non-RS

Ref 2: Por que a Nelogica pode se tornar uma das primeiras fintechs brasileiras de impacto global? An interview with the founders during an conferences. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 3: EXCLUSIVO: Nelogica avaliada em R$ 2,9 bilhões em rodada com Crescera e Vulcan Press-release. Routine coverage. Valuation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 4: Conheça o JBZ, a joia da Faria Lima de Porto Alegre Description of a building, their corporate HQ. Non-notable.

Ref 5: Doesn't resolve the url correctly, but its a share listing cite, showing the company share prices. Doesn't indication notability.

Ref 6: O segredo dos traders que nenhum consultor te conta The secrets of traders that no consultant tells you. A listing of advanced tools for trading. Their software.

Ref 7: Requisitos para instalação do Profit em seu computador Requirements for installation of Profit on your computer. How to install the software. Non-RS.

Ref 8: Learning to operate on Profit Mobile Non-RS

Ref 9: "Começaremos operação nos EUA, e talvez na Europa, ainda neste ano", diz CEO da Nelogica A press-release to state they are starting operation in Europe.

Here you have an interview with the founders, several press-releases, company manuals and 3 non-rs links. The references above are no different. The whole things fails WP:NCORP. There is not single secondary source amongst the lot of it. Its all advertising and PR. scope_creep^Talk 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the analysis above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, a point conceded by SailingInABathTub above also. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the analysis above is partially flawed. **Ref 1** is for the number of employees only, how is the company itself not a reliable source for that? **Ref 2** for instance is not an interview with the founders during conferences, it's an long article about the company history, which *includes* an interview. This has already been pointed out in this discussion before, but ignored by the OP of this request. As for **Ref 3** I am not sure what the OP means by "press release" in this case (I do not understand the significance of the term in this context). The company received significant funding (billions) in a series from VCs and other funds and the ref is a specialized website covering it and also talking about the company history. This was not the only source to cover this event, OP failed to mention [40], a national magazine. This event received more coverage than is mentioned in the article, as it was not necessary as there were already reliable sources for it, but for completion here is more sources that covered this event found in a quick search: [41] [42] Ref 4 is indeed about the building, and used to reference that only... The rest of the analysis I would say is correct, it's press coverage spawning several years of various topics related to the company (starting operation in Europe, etc) from multiple reliable sources, including national newspapers and magazines (e.g. [43]). Some refs are indeed technical details used to reference some parts of the article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not have much to add here, just going through some old discussions still open and trying to add to the consensus where appropriate. The reasons for deletion have been discussed in detail by several users now and I agree that the lack of secondary sources means the criteria at NCORP cannot be established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the references above:

Ref 7 above fails WP:CORPDEPTH, company valuations. It from a press-release.

Ref 8 is a press-release annoucing an acquisition. Acquisitions are routine coverage that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. From a press-release.

Ref 9 Nelogica, owner of Profit platform, is valued at $2.9bn, says website Press-release. fail WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 10 More acquisition news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

All of it is driven by press-releases and all of primary. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 20 July 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. In the absence of any policy based arguments, and no suggestions that WP:SIGCOV is met. Already relisted twice with no further discussion forthcoming. TigerShark (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 Reels Entertainment

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

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

An article on a film production company, titled under its earlier of two names. An article under the later title (14 Reels Plus) was deleted at AfD in January 2022, and the current instance was created last month. I can't see the earlier article instance to assess whether it a repost, so opening this new AfD. Perhaps the company's involvement in Dookudu might be more than falling under WP:NOTINHERITED, but if so, explicit coverage would be needed. If not, this appears to be just a company going about its business, with passing mentions rather than coverage, and failing to demonstrate specific notability. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the company has a long list of Telugu movies. Perhaps it's notable. --Bash7oven (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company has a decent amount of films produced over a time span of 10 years and they are notable in the Telugu industry for producing bigger budget films so it seems like an article that could exist. SP013 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:16, 12 July 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 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hum3D

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

Falls short of meeting WP:NCORP--There's some trivial coverage citing it for its 3D models, and some borderline coverage (a bit PRish) of its Car Render Challenge, which currently has a stronger claim to meeting notability guidelines than the company, but basically nothing analyzing the company itself. I was not able to find additional coverage searching online, although editors better-versed in Ukrainian may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Ukraine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon dear @Rosguill. Thank you so much for the clarification.

I am in the process of improving the article. All your requirements will be taken into account. Have a nice day with respect Kuba Ali (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see 19 changes in the last 5 days, which is good. I would encourage you to keep working on it. But the article still looks to me like two things: a commercial for the company and a description of the competition. Perhaps it might be more productive to consider changing the focus of the article, so that it is primarily about the competition, maybe focusing on the fact that it is an annual competition and with comments about the company limited to those that are necessary to broaden the understanding of the competition. For example, with some digging, you might be able to find the winners for each of the eight years that the competition was held. Radzy0 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider the many recent edits to this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The three new sources added to the article since this was opened are [44], [45], [46]. The first article is a half-step in the right direction: it's actual coverage of the company itself, but it's un-bylined from a source I'm not familiar with and that doesn't appear to have been discussed on Wikipedia yet, and it doesn't provide any independent analysis beyond a basic description of the company. If we're being particularly charitable, it could count as our first source towards meeting notability guidelines, but its companions fall short. The second piece is blatantly not independent, and the third is yet another press release about the design competition. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, thank you for your feedback. I've changed the CgSociety source to the 80.lv - both are authority websites on the 3d modeling market and they do not publish any information without fact-checking by an editor. Thinkinetic.blog is a blog of the software development company (official website) from Spain, that make popular 3d products - so I decided that it can prove the information. Also, Hum3D made a press release about furniture models only in the Ukrainian language, and there are some news websites had written about it. I have chose Apostrophe.ua as the most known (this news can be important to Hum3D because they known for a long time as car 3d modellers and right now developing also furniture). Leksunski (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of buzz about this company, but not a lot of the type of significant independent journalistic coverage we seek in WP:ORGCRIT. I wish the principals of this company the best, but I don't think there's a case to be made for notability for this company right now. FalconK (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK! Please let me add a personal note, as a member of the 3D community. I've been following the contest for years, and I think the Challenge is one of the most significant events of the year among 3D artists. A lot of artists apply to participate, but not everyone passes under the conditions. Many contestants keep diaries in which they gradually post the progress of their artwork. While a large number of novice and experienced 3D artists follow the process. I really think that information about the organizer of such an important event for the 3D community could be useful for Wikipedia readers. I've added links to mentions in those print and online media for 3D artists that I'm aware of. I also see references in the article to mentions on well-known sites outside the 3D modeling niche, such as Forbes and Nvidia. Considering there aren't too many well-known brands in 3D modeling, I find these mentions notable. Flytermit (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from Ukraine and found not so many good sources about the company. Not enough notable yet. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good afternoon dear panelists. I have checked many resources, including those in Ukraine. So it happens that the location of the company in Ukraine, but the main activity takes place all over the world and the importance of the company in the country of residence is less than in other countries, and this is the answer for Молдовський винний погріб. But my main argument is that why is Hum3D worse than a similar company such as Daz Productions, Inc.? As for me the importance of Hum3D and the "Hum3D Render Challenge" contest is significant in order for this page not to be deleted. Respectfully Kuba Ali (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuba Ali pleae read: WP:WHATABOUTX to avoid such bad arguments in the future. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your response, respected Молдовський винний погріб. I wanted to point out that the fact that you did not find enough sources in Ukraine can not be an argument for removal. As the page has enough significant sources. Thank you Kuba Ali (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kuba, you must remember that for companies to be seen as notable, *each* source must meet all of WP:NCORP criteria which includes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Saying that the article has "significant sources" without pointing to (which paragraph in) which source contains material that meets requirements is not convincing. I also suggest strongly, just as Radzy0 and Rosguill mentioned above, to instead look at creating an article about the competition as it appears to be easier to find sources for this which might meet GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some Wikibusines activity on this article. Not a good sign. MER-C 17:20, 7 July 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. COI issues don't make a topic any less notable. Additional sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and the article seems to be in a better state than when it was first nominated. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ince Gordon Dadds

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

Insufficient independent coverage for example newspapers, books etc and weak coverage by unreliable sources like press releases. Doubt over wether or not the company is notable, as whilst they bring in plenty of revenue, there’s not much media coverage to demonstrate they are different from the average law firm.

Previously COI tagged after a number of suspicious users where spotted editing the article, including one with the same name as the company. COI tag removed by another editor despite not making significant edits, so COI tag has since been restored as an ongoing issue. GeekBurst (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the name of the firm has changed to "The Ince Group", so you may have been searching for the wrong firm name. I've now changed it in the article, but assuming the article is kept, we'll need to move it. There is a lot of interest in it as one of the few listed (publicly traded) law firms, so you should be able to find plenty of coverage about it as an entity, from independent reliable sources. I can't find exactly where else this was discussed, but generally lawyers and law firm staff tend to be clued up about conflict of interest issues, so it seems likely that the COI editors are young interns or new hires before they join. In any case anyone actually affiliated with the firm probably would have gotten the firm name right, at least. The article is in terrible shape with outdated information and definitely needs a proper update. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of coverage for The Ince Group plc is press releases, primarily discussing business profits rather than that day to day operation, which alone wouldn’t qualify the business as notable. GeekBurst (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but there is also a lot that goes beyond that. Do you have access to Wikipedia Library? I'll come back and help you out in a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG via substantial news coverage in trade publications, such as Law.com [47] [48] [49] and Legal Cheek [50]. The firm is also profiled in authoritative industry rankings, such as The Legal 500 [51] [52] and Chambers and Partners [53]. feminist (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Law.com & LegalCheek articles do not meet the criteria for ‘independent coverage of subject’ & the simple inclusion of a business on a listicle such as those seen at The Legal 500 & Chambers and Partners fails both significance and independence. Please keep in mind a business simply been mentioned in multiple sources doesn’t make it notable, particularly when those sources fail to support the GNG criteria. GeekBurst (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Law.com and Legal Cheek articles I linked are all independent of the subject (none of them are sponsored) and are all non-trivial coverage focusing on the day to day operation of the firm, going beyond a passing mention. I don't see the issue here. feminist (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The Law.com (aka American Lawyer Media International edition) articles are generally OK for establishing notability, if they go beyond regurgitating press releases, which these do (and as with any source, we use them with care in citing them). LegalCheek, however, does not qualify because it's more of an industry gossip and news site, much like Above the Law in the US (which is also very informative but insider gossip-driven). It doesn't mean we shouldn't read LegalCheek and Above the Law while doing background research; it just means we always need to hunt for more reliable sources to back up any facts and cite those sources instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And even if I just look at the nominated article in its current state, it cites sources like the Times, the Law Society Gazette and Legal Business – what's the issue with these sources? feminist (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Law Society Gazette is produced by The Law Society of England and Wales which is an industry association and therefore can’t be accepted as independent of the subject per GNG. GeekBurst (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've struck Law Society Gazette from my comment below. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as in reading the article as it stands now, there is more than enough evidence for notability, with substantial coverage from independent reliable sources including legal industry publications such as The Lawyer, Legal Business, ~~The Law Society Gazette~~, The Global Legal Post, and Legal Futures, and national newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and city newspapers such as The Evening Standard and City AM. (Prior commenter also identified additional coverage establishing notability which currently isn't cited in the article, from publications such as Law.com (American Lawyer Media).) While some of these publications are difficult to access, many of them are not, and in any case their existence should have been identified during the WP:BEFORE step prior to submitting to AfD. I would highly recommend that the nominator work toward Wikipedia Library access, as it will make research on business topics much easier, and we definitely need more editors who are interested in helping to create high-quality business and organisation-related content on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the nominator's frustration with the past COI editors, but in cases like this where there seems to be some coverage but you're not sure how to fix it, I would advise posting a notice to the relevant WikiProject Talk pages asking for input and help from others, rather than using AfD to fix WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability criteria and reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:48, 4 July 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 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul & Joe Productions

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

Unsourced. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources (only a few trivial mentions), so notability guidelines (WP:NCORP) are not satisfied for this group. ComplexRational (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ComplexRational (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. Is eligible for G5 deletion but it is better to have a more sticky form of deletion. MER-C 11:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: It's not G5 eligible. The blocked sock BrutBrother moved an earlier incarnation of the article by ToasyCake to draftspace and is credited with the creation of a redirect, which was subsequently overwritten by ToasyCake (essentially an objection to draftification by the same author). ComplexRational (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t find any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 6 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medallia

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

Per WP:SERIESA, lack of notability. Coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/MDLA/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
7/26/2021	Berenberg Bank	Reiterated Rating	Buy ➝ Hold	$33.00 ➝ $33.59	-0.74%	View Rating Details
7/26/2021	Needham & Company LLC	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$33.60		View Rating Details
7/26/2021	BTIG Research	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral	$33.60		View Rating Details
7/26/2021	William Blair	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform			View Rating Details
7/26/2021	Craig Hallum	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold			View Rating Details
9/4/2020	Roth Capital	Reiterated Rating	Buy			View Rating Details
8/9/2021	Truist Financial	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$34.00	+0.44%	View Rating Details
8/5/2021	Robert W. Baird	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Neutral	$32.00 ➝ $34.00	+0.95%	View Rating Details
7/27/2021	Stifel Nicolaus	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$40.00 ➝ $34.00	+1.19%	View Rating Details
7/27/2021	Citigroup	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral	$50.00 ➝ $34.00	+1.19%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	Wells Fargo	Boost Target	Overweight	$30.00 ➝ $35.00	+18.24%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	Oppenheimer	Boost Target	Outperform	$33.00 ➝ $35.00	+18.24%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	SunTrust Banks	Boost Target	Buy	$28.00 ➝ $33.00	+21.95%	View Rating Details
7/29/2019	Stephens	Initiated Coverage	Overweight	$52.00	+22.99%	View Rating Details
3/29/2021	Credit Suisse Group	Reiterated Rating	Neutral	$34.00	+25.14%	View Rating Details
1/19/2021	Bank of America	Initiated Coverage	Buy	$50.00	+26.52%	View Rating Details
8/13/2019	CIBC	Initiated Coverage	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$55.00	+32.21%	View Rating Details
8/13/2019	UBS Group	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$55.00	+40.00%	View Rating Details

Additional sources

Blechynden, Daniel (2020-07-30). "Medallia experience management platform review. Versatile experience management software designed for your business". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The review notes: "Medallia is a popular experience management (opens in new tab) platform which comes with a range of powerful tools. Founded in 2001, it has rapidly grown to become a global provider with over 1000 employees and 15 offices across the world. ... Medallia offers a few different customer service options, but there is a notable absence of live chat support. ... Medallia is an industry-leader in the business analytics and customer experience field, but there are plenty of alternatives available if you don’t have room in your budget for its high price tag."
Gage, Deborah (2012-09-26). "Medallia Aims to Improve Service at Big Companies With $35M From Sequoia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medallia, 11 years old and profitable, has technology to bridge this gap, and it's raised $35 million from Sequoia Capital as part of its first institutional funding round, VentureWire has learned. Valuation is not disclosed. Medallia was founded in 2001 by Borge Hald and Amy Pressman, two veterans of the Boston Consulting Group who noticed when they were on business trips that they preferred the service at smaller companies and hotels. ... Medallia's early years were lean. The company had talked to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, which ultimately became a customer, on Sept. 10, 2001, and had plans to raise venture capital, but 9/11 scuttled those plans. Instead, Medallia was bootstrapped month-to-month until revenue started coming in a year or so later."
Konrad, Alex. "Medallia Shares Soared 76% In First-Day Trading. Here's What Its CEO Had To Say About The IPO 'Pop'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Eleven months ago, customer feedback company Medallia hired an industry veteran named Leslie Stretch to guide it to IPO. On Friday, he delivered – but so well as to raise questions about what constitutes a successful tech IPO in the era of high-flying enterprise debuts such as Slack, Zoom and CrowdStrike. After pricing its offering at a higher-than-expected $21 per share on Thursday night, shares of Medallia raced up 76% and then largely held on afterward, finishing the company’s first day of trading at $37.05 a share. The day was a big win for Stretch and Medallia, an 18-year-old maker of software that helps collect, measure and interpret customer feedback and sentiment for big businesses like Bank of America, Citi and ExxonMobil. ... When Stretch took over at Medallia in 2018, he inherited a then-17-year-old company known as one of the pioneers of using software to measure customer feedback and sentiment through surveys and social tools."
Roof, Katie (2019-07-22). "Sequoia Sees Another Billion Dollar Exit With Medallia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medallia’s market value was over $6 billion as of Monday, including warrants, options and restricted stock. The company raised more than $325 million in its offering."
Adams, Faith (2020-04-22). "Medallia + Voci: Smart Move". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article is written by Faith Adams, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. The article notes: "Medallia continues its buying spree — adding to its numerous acquisitions in 2019 and its purchase of video feedback platform LivingLens in February of this year. ... Technology is just one piece of the puzzle, though, when it comes to CX transformation. For Medallia to continue its success, it will also have to help customers grow and evolve their CX initiatives — a continuing challenge for both technology and service providers in the CX space."
Fazio, Colleen; de Quintanilha, Joana; Warner, Rusty (2022-01-26). "Medallia + Thunderhead Is A Boost For Brands On The VoC Maturity Journey". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article is written by Colleen Fazio, a senior analyst, Joana de Quintanilha, a VP, Principal Analyst, and Rusty Warner, a VP, Principal Analyst. The article notes: "How will Thunderhead be integrated? Reference clients for The Forrester Wave™: Customer Feedback Management Platforms, Q2 2021 expressed skepticism about how Medallia’s new acquisitions would be integrated. The Thunderhead announcement is the latest of a dizzying number of Medallia acquisitions in the past 18 months, including digital experience platform Decibel, contact center coaching and quality management platform Stella Connect, and speech-to-text platform Voci Technologies. For clients to fully realize the benefits of these offerings, Medallia will need to focus on enabling data integration and analysis in a seamless and user-friendly way.
Pound, Jesse (2019-07-19). "Medallia soars more than 75% in market debut as investors flock to another cloud software IPO". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medalia’s competitors include SurveyMonkey, which went public last September, and Qualtrics, which SAP bought for $8 billion in November just ahead of the company’s IPO. ... Prior to the offering, Sequoia Capital owned 40% of the company, an unusually large stake for a venture firm at this stage. At Friday’s high, Sequoia stake was worth about $1.8 billion."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medallia to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Routine reporting on financial transactions doesn't establish notability though. FalconK (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that analyst reports can be used to establish notability. I have provided 18 analyst reports about the company. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cunard, "Ratings (by analysts)" are not "Analyst Reports". The "ratings" linked above in your table do not contain sufficient CORPDEPTH to be considered as meeting NCORP criteria. But the links to Analyst reports by Forrester and Gartner for example meet the criteria as the provide in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of the columns of the table says "Upside/Downside on Report Date". These are not merely analyst ratings. These are analyst reports that contain analyst ratings alongside research into how the analysts reached their conclusions. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Marketbeat's Upside/Downside ratings are explained here. It's effectively comparing the stock price performance to other indices. I don't believe that qualifies as in-depth information sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. If these analyst ratings contained CORPDEPTH information I would expect to see the "content" of these reports in the article (or any article about a business) but ... we don't as far as my experience goes. Whereas the longer analyst reports will nearly always contain information that may appear in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I finally found a way to get the Craig Hallum report of 26 July 2021, and it absolutely does not contain the type of information meant in WP:ORGCRIT. Of three pages, the second is merely financial accounts over time and the third is required disclosures. The first page announces an acquisition deal (routine) and discusses how financial and operational ephemera will affect the stock price and acquisition. It's very good analysis if you're trying to price the stock, but it's not stuff that is of all that much use when trying to establish the company's role in the broader context. FalconK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2017-07 Kampyle (software) (closed as ✓ keep)

Logs: 2011-12 ✗ G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore NCORP is the most appropriate evaluation criteria. Ratings are not Analyst reports and they do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. But there are sufficient Analyst reports such as the one from Forrester linked above by Cunard and the one from Gartner linked above by me. Topic therefore meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Listed company with sufficient amount of analyst reports. Meets WP:LISTED. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:52, 4 July 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!} 23:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeep

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

Can't see any indication that WP:CORP is met SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find relialbe sources with significant coverage. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I found one not bad - the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/nov/21/didnt-have-choice-think-carefully-about-cash ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [54], [55], [56], [57], etc. The reason given for deletion does not hold water. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every mention of a company on something that looks like a news source is good for WP:ORGCRIT. Of the sources mentioned in this AfD, only the guardian clearly meets the bar for source reliability, but the article isn't independent (it's an interview with the founder). As an imprint of the financial times, TNW might, but the TNW reference's situation re. notability establishment is even worse, since it's both dependent and a mention in a list. FalconK (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage. Seems to be typical startup news and paid write-up in the Guardian. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Dubious about startups.co.uk. Thenextweb seems ok, although as it has the same picture as the last one it takes it down a bit, but this isn't PR generated the same way. The Guardian is an interview with little original content not originating from that interview, so fails ORGCRITE. Techcrunch is good, and is more than a routine announcement of fundraising, but provides some independent analysis. None of it is horribly in-depth except for the interview, so I come up with the equivalent of 1.5 sources, which may seem an odd analysis, so therefore this isn't a !vote, just thinking out loud. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm normally one of the biggest business articles supporters here, but the coverage isn't that great. Funding of $1M is relatively small, and a lot of the article is name dropping and not actually about the company itself. I initially considered calling it WP:TOOSOON, but they were founded 8 years ago. The founder Avin Rabheru was awarded an MBE. Not adverse to merging this into an article about him, where the sourcing requirement for including company info wouldn't be so high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 4 July 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 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAB TV (Pakistan)

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

Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs to be expanded, but it's proper broadcast television station in Pakistan with a government-issued TV license (one of not too many), so I think we should keep it around for the sake of completion. Plus, we don't want people looking it up and finding only a page on Sony Sab based out of India and assuming they are the same thing, especially considering the relationship between the two countries. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, to find a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a license does not confer notability. There's none in evidence in the article and none I could find online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, without any refs online, definitely does not meet GNG. VickKiang (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeVosMax is in error; see WP:EXISTS. Not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:56, 3 July 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.

[1] "Recovery Watch: The great follow-ups revolution". Health Service Journal. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.

[2] Eduardo Koiti Matsura (2020). Comprar Ou Vender? (in Brazilian Portuguese). Saraiva Educação S.A. ISBN 9788557173415.

[3] Stoiber, Christina; Ceneda, Davide; Wagner, Markus; Schetinger, Victor; Gschwandtner, Theresia; Streit, Marc; Miksch, Silvia; Aigner, Wolfgang (March 2022). "Perspectives of visualization onboarding and guidance in VA". Visual Informatics. 6 (1): 68–8. doi:10.1016/j.visinf.2022.02.005.

[4] Silva, Roberto; Zembrzuski, Marcelo; Correa, Fabio C.; Lamb, Luis C. (1 December 2010). "Stock markets and criticality in the current economic crisis". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 389 (23). Elsevier: 5460–5467. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.08.021.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Companies deletion==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Right Services (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sirplay}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_Ventures}}