Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:14, 20 April 2024

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Business

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 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities served by Comcast

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

This list of every town in American that has Comcast cable does not belong on wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR, Furthermore, the list is incorrect and outdated and even if updated accurate information could be found, this still serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, Internet, and United States of America. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many many many companies on Wikipedia list their service area(s). Perhaps not to the level of the city/town licenses which is what actually grants Comcast its service area. i.e. One canneot get XFINITY outside of city/town licensed to allow offer it. But should a company's service area be listed on Wikipedia is the better question? Many banks list the states they're in as they're licensed on the state level. Verizon lists their FiOS area markets. Charter Communications lists its markets. The satellite providers which are all in the same sky list their service areas. Radio/TV stations list the area/markets they're licensed to serve. Mobile companies list the states they are licensed to operate in. There's LOTS of DIR on Wikipedia. For example: List of countries with Burger King franchises. To that logic wouldn't people just goto BK.com and look up what Burger Kings are nearby? CaribDigita (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDB. No analysis or summary is offered; the article is just a long bulleted list. Anyone searching for this information would just get it from Comcast, who would have a more up-to-date list anyway. Consensus has been that standalone lists of airline destinations are not encyclopedic enough for WP, and I think this article is very similar in concept to that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR and minimal coverage of the topic (this is about as good as secondary coverage gets). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDB. Unencyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Selby (psychologist)

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, Spirituality, Psychology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG despite the effort to inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of Prom. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimetis

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear this business is notable. The article seems to have been created as an advertisement for it. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News articles I find are just PR items, what's used in the article now are pretty much of the same quality. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree, can only find press releases, and companies that put every damn listicle they're mentioned in in their Wikipedia article grind my gears. BrigadierG (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MorphThing

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert of non-notable (only trivial coverage) website. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything beyond name checks. We can't have an article exclusively sourced to primary, first-party sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary, user-generated sources and trivial listings found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RooR

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

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Since someone did propose draftify as an option, I'll note I'm not at all opposed to the page being refunded to draft space for further work if requested. However, for the time being, the original author is inactive and no one has shown a particular interest in improving the article, so I'm going with delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LandFighter

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

Nearly unsourced advertisement of non-notable brand. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Europe, and Netherlands. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, Draftify.: The external links section only has a dead-link to the website of the brand. Article also only has 1 source at the time of me posting this. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brand folded without leaving an impression. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans locations

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

Flatly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a standing precedence for such lists. There is no reason to believe this is a suitable merge candidate. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:NOTPRICE is the specific portion of the policy that indicates lists like this should be avoided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? delete per WP:NOTPRICE. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPRICE. (Although not knowing where the nearest Burger Bar is poses serious concerns.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is outside our remit as a general knowledge encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it appears the creator did a lot of work in creating this article, this is clearly a WP:NOTPRICE violation. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So far the references are all short announcements of events, plus some mentions in articles about other topics. I think this establishes the "newsworthy-ness" of the organization but only barely meets GNG. I looked for, but did not find, an indepth source about the organization. That is still needed. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable organization with a lack of sourcing, apart from the usual promotional drivel to support its existence. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP/ORG. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [1] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [2] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for India & Global Business

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

nn. No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, India, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House management

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

Unreferenced article on ambiguous term. Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Business, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT, this is nothing but a show business trivia definition. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The scope of the article, or its possible use as a dab, is not well stated. "Front of the house management" is an occupation, but I'm not sure this is the right title. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janaratna

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

Non-notable neologism. No evidence of any usage beyond a single conference presentation. WP:BEFORE reveals no potential sources. Tagged for notability for a decade. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per nominator this is a newly invented term with no record of coverage or even usage outside the article now under discussion. Central and Adams (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Invented term with zero records anywhere. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No records found. Grabup (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Software Industry Association

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

Appears to be defunct - no recent activity - can't find anything after 2007 - no notable references online. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search at the New York Secretary of State https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/ says that the association still exists. The archived versions of the association's website include pages that redirect to another group, New York Technology Council, Inc., which later merged into NY Tech Alliance, Inc. https://www.nytech.org/ Perhaps references exist for NY Tech Alliance and its events, including NY Tech Meetup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non article. It says nothing and has no refs. 25 edits in 19 years, so could have been prodded away. Desertarun (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Kingdom

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

Pretty random company; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Reference 6 may be just enough to establish notability, but the other sources are either churnalism or trivial business fluff in the "check out these 50 hot retailers of this week!" style of non-news. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update — the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Mentions here and there don't cut it. Also we should have zero tolerance for undisclosed paid editing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Network (matchmaking)

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

At first glance this looks well-sourced, however on a closer look except for one source I couldn't access none of them are actually in-depth and independent. Nearly everything is reliant on information provided by the company's founders - the sole exception is the American Banker source which has one paragraph attributed to a third-party analyist

Both of those trends make Citizens' partnership with Opportunity Network stand out. In 2016, Patricia Hines, a senior analyst at Celent, researched the venture capital and private-equity money that was flowing to fintech startups. Only 5% of it, she found, was going to startups working on commercial applications.
"I have not seen anything even close to this," she said, referring to Opportunity Network.

But that by itself is nowhere near enough to support notability. Previously deleted and salted as Opportunity Network * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Websites, Spain, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references fail the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation

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

As far as I can tell lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in most sources which are independent from the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as far as I can find, the information I can find about this from independent reliable sources is insufficient for an article. Three of the four refs on the page are from the company's website. this seems to mention the company and its founder, and I guess you could use this, although I'm not too sure it's that reliable. Apart from that, I can't find much more. JacobTheRox (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream news outlets have discussed the organization and their events and activities many times over the years:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberals-in-denial-on-terror-and-should-be-destroyed-says-think-tank-boss/news-story/b483f845b88ab401edc60176d8137583

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/why-gold-always-glitters-for-mining-legend-ron-manners/news-story/d15e178d5515b8b5de3b39bfc70a51f1

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/senator-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-speaks-at-the-mannkal-foundations-emerging-leaders-event/

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/former-liberal-mp-john-hyde-awarded-oam/

https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Business-leaders-in-Queen-s-Birthday-Honours

https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Manners-made-for-mining

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/rebranding-the-mining-industry-20111114-1nfef.html Lukemcgr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spectator is not WP:GREL per WP:SPECTATOR, It's articles are primarily opinion pieces and should be judged accordingly. The WA Today story mentions Mannkal once, a long way from SIGCOV. I can't access The Australian articles so I can't make a judgment, however given both headlines I'd be surprised if there was SIGCOV of Mannkal in and of itself. The two Business News articles have more than passing mentions, however smack heavily of paid PR content. TarnishedPath^talk 22:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this on my radar since just before the most recent relist... should probably commit to getting it done today so I don't forget it again. Haven't finished my review of the sources yet, but I just wanted to note that these specific articles in The Australian are available in The Wikipedia Library's subscription of ProQuest (under different titles) for anyone interested. "Liberals in denial" is 1905750740 (TWL EZproxy link), "Mining legend" is 2834330126. Another article in The Australian is "No campaign stands by Gary Johns amid controversy" (2841623161), but that is also a name check, we can use it to verify that they a) have a Christmas party and b) people speak at it but that's pretty much it. As another way to access, I think most The Australian articles also let you skip the paywall if you access as a google AMP. Anyway, should hopefully be done with the rest of the sources in my list soon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While my search is not entirely exhaustive, I believe we can exclude with high confidence that there exists any coverage satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH. I would honestly disagree that even the two Business News articles go anywhere beyond what is solidly WP:ORGTRIV (of Mannkal, rather than the founder Manners) "Queen's Birthday" has approximately two facts about the organisation, and precisely zero analysis; "Manners made for mining" is the same. The other articles in Business News are largely "here is what they said" "here's one of them writing a column for us this week" etc. Surely very interesting, but not something we can write an article about the org from.

There are two books that have brief mentions, Ferguson's 2012 Gina Rinehart, ISBN 9783031270444, says: Gina has forged links with some of the most aggressive free-market think tanks in Australia and overseas. These have included the Institute of Public Affairs, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Manners has been appointed to the Board of Overseers for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation which is associated with neoliberal think tanks in 80 countries. and Hagland's 2023 Think Tanks in Australia: Policy Contributions and Influence, ISBN 9783031270444 also mentions Mannkal, twice in footnotes, once in body text quoting their executive director and also in the index and appendices containing list of think tanks. I think Hagland's book is quite interesting, and could be useful in a more general article (on, you know, think tanks in Australia in general), but ultimately, again, there is almost nothing to write about this org itself.

On the two Spectator articles, the first one, about Senator Price is written by, uh, Ron Manners. The founder and chair. So, not independent. Not that it even really says anything about the org. The other one is a reprint of their presser. As far as I can tell, none of the other score of articles that have a keyword match for Mannkal have anything to say either, most of them are just "this was written by Mannkal scholar/chairman/alumni".

I do not see how we could possibly write any article based on what is published in independent, reliable secondary sources, and in this case, that mean we most likely shouldn't. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyagold

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

Not able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources and company revenue, this article is enough notable as per wikipedia guidelines^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss6644 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC) — Ss6644 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Despite the number of sources in the article, most simply regurgitate information provided by the company and/or execs and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note I'll let the AfD play out, but note that this article was created by a WP:UPE sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthy Mummy

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

This is odd. It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school. It's also a complete advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history. Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article. Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive. Wozza369 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete. The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books. It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here. At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find. Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox. They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history. Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page and the history. Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article. I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly. I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error. Wozza369 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional. "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums". All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported. It reads like an advert. KJP1 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more. This [10] gives context on how the website is used, [11] and [12] seem to cover the website and the founder. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is going to have to be delete. I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And it’s an advert. KJP1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete !vote, so this is a duplicate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made. I’m just not very familiar with the process. I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

[1]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Business==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities served by Comcast}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Selby_(psychologist)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimetis (2nd nomination)}}