Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:29, 26 June 2010

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation America

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

Company which fails WP:CORP, only sources read like press releases. Contested prod. Claritas § 08:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This business offers dedicated server hosting, voice over IP [VOIP], bandwidth and IP services and managed virtual private networks to enterprises of the small to medium sized variety...., another non-consumer Internet firm in a crowded field. Also obviously promotional: they have cutting edge data centers and joined in the eco-friendly movement too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No independent sourcing found. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2010 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locstein

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

Non-notable firm with no refererences to establish notability, with potential WP:ADVERT and WP:COI issues |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the only reference I could find, called seriously into question the legitimacy of Locstein. See an investigative piece from the Mirror: "'Leading' money firm Locstein Asset takes on lying cheat Matt James." From my own research I could find very little to establish that this is a credible organization. It does not appear to be registered as would a typical financial services organization in the UK. I am very skeptical and noted that this fail on a number of other fronts as well|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Floor Interactive

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

I believe this may fail notability requirements regarding organisations. It was saved from CSD because of "two Ohio Interactive Awards in 2010" - however I am unsure as to whether this equates notability, as these awards are just for the best company website in 2010 in Ohio. This does not strike me as that notable, and I seek consensus at AfD. Negative g-hits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete hardly any coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards for website design do not confer notability on the company as a whole. Loves Macs (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their website winning a comparitively minor award doesn't help them meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 28 June 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Diesel Technologies

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

Non notable training company/organisation, also seems to be like advertising the company/organisation on Wikipedia rather then encyclopaedic notability. (This was Prod'ed but removed by the editor) Bidgee (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially speedy-deleted, but after several edit-conflicts restored it so the AfD can run its course. No indication that the company has any notability other than as a background for politicians. Acroterion _(talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per TransporterMan. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears that sections of the article are WP:COPYPASTE from, at least, 3 of the sources listed. Can remove the cut/paste sections, but not sure how much of the article would be left. It may qualify for WP:CSD G12, as it needs a complete rewrite. So far, the article copies verbatim some of this, this and this. Akerans (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (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 Lakeville Motor Express. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeville motor express

There is another page for this entry it is Lakeville Motor Express. This page was created incorrectly and a new page was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketolson (talk • contribs) 2010/06/15 19:31:29

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect ~~as per A7, no indication of notability~~ to Lakeville Motor Express as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony 19

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

fails WP:CORP, looks like an ad. can't find significant coverage [2]. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable company; fails WP:N and WP:CORP as it has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third party sources. Appears to be an advert type posting, as article creator claims to also be the creator of its logo in his uploading of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch Accounting

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an ad and most of its sources are its own website. not much in gnews [3]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom - fails WP:CORP - promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (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. extransit (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NewTech Infosystems Inc.

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no refs, all first-page ghits are to WP, or the company's website, and the article sounds like advertisement. A likely candidate for G11, methinks. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More than 2.5 years on WP and no independent sources have been added. I find lots of recycled press releases via a Google search, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this page when I got price quote for this company product. So this is real company with very small footprint on the web. Why it is so I don't know. see http://www.nticorp.com/en/us/company/about_overview.asp User:Abune (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the company exists, but can you explain how it meets the criteria spelled out in WP:CORP? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for software businesses; the field is crowded, and commercial businesses generally need to show some kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance. Nothing seems to indicate that this business has reached that level, though it surely exists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the importance consideration here is not whether a company exists (and this one does), it's whether it's notable. If it has a "very small footprint on the web", that means that it most likely fails WP:CORP, and indeed, I can find very little independent coverage of the company anywhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 27 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green zebra adventures

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

Creator removed speedy G11 nomination. Article has since been edited several times but still makes no claims to notability or even WP:GNG. Essentially promotional in tone and content. Fenix down (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No indication of significance whatsoever -clearly falls under A7. Suggest an admin delete it now per WP:SNOWBALL. Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Promotional. No notability shown. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer!
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thinly-veiled advertisement for a non-notable tour company. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (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. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Technologies

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

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

Non notable software company, Fails WP:CORP - the only coverage is not significant, most of it reproductions of press releases. Also adding XML Studio it's main product, article is promotional and also lack of coverage (even less than the links about may indicate as there looks like there are two products called XML Studio) so fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also note strongly promotional tone: Liquid XML Data Binding has grown in popularity due to its support from all the major languages and its ability to deal with complex schemas.... The free edition is extremely popular in schools and universities, its split code/diagram views speed the learning of the complex XSD standard.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator needs to read the guideline that an article isn't spam merely because its subject is a commercial body. Copyediting would be useful and if the time of copyeditors wasn't continually wasted in farcical AfDs, it might even get done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but XML Studio reads like a sales brochure, product lacks any form of significant coverage and as a result fails WP:GNG, as for the company again no significant coverage, falis WP:GNG - I am unable to see what any amount of Copyediting could help with the notability of both the company and it's software. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little independent coverage so fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (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. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

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

Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product "Sandra". Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also obvious advertising for yet another business to business back-office tech company: a provider of computer analysis, diagnostic and benchmarking software. The flagship product, known as "SANDRA", was launched in 1997 and has become notably popular in its field..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiSoft should be an instantly recognizable name to anyone who has opened a computing magazine at some point during the past decade. The article needs improving. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SiSoft SANDRA. Their flagship product is notable in fact, however, I don't think the company deserves an article of its own for a single notable product. A redirect to an article on the product seems acceptable, too. Nageh (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Their flagship product is a well-known tool used for system diagnostics. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Some Wiki Editor. Also 2,070,000 hits on Google. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flesh out with information about their flagship product "Sandra". Coverage is not particularly in-depth, but is counterbalanced by the breadth. A google book search provides a lot sources that provide small writeups including Leo Laporte declaring it one his favourites. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For several years Sisoft-Sandra was one of those tools installed on my one or other pc. I don't know if Sisoft or Sandra is more worthy of an article but there is certainly some cultural and historical significance here.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Lounge

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

A chain with only seven outlets after five years trading. Two sources, the first of which is clearly taken from a press release, the second is far from being a dispassionate review (the author appears to be a True Believer in kook health food, note comments on "memory booster"). Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP--Sodabottle (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Softwaremining

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

Non-notable corporation Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Promotional piece for yet another business to business back-office tech firm: specializing in transformation tools for the modernization of legacy COBOL applications. SoftwareMining's modernization approach is to help clients move their COBOL Software Applications to a maintainable Java or C# code base, thus removing dependencies on a diminishing pool of legacy resources .... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 23 June 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickcart

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

Software for creating on-line shops. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unreferenced. Sub-minimal claim to historic, technical, or cultural significance: the very first Shopping Cart code ever written using the Cold Fusion development language on the Internet. Obvious advertising: the code was completely overhauled to take advantage of new technologies.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... contains a step-by-step walk-through of how to setup your store. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN software. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:20, 25 June 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RElements

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

In good faith - possible advertising or non notability? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: both advertising and non-notable. This is obvious soliciting of funds --- rElements have experienced an very high growth rate since its foundation. Google News Archive finds only one Experian report and a bunch of typos. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article "Rafael Gracioso Martins, a young entrepreneur who worked and developed Chemical Vapor Deposition chambers for producing advanced composites...", and the only contributing author is rgmcorp. Coincidence? I think not. Blatant self-promotion, in direct contravention of policy.

-- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 13:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of independent sources is a strong indication of lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Workspace Management

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

I feel this article must duplicate another, and possibly is just a definition for a category that's already on Wikipedia. In any case, there is no source here, and nothing worth expanding. I think the user created the page in good faith, but it seems this information is redundant redundant with other information on this encyclopedia. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator whose account bears the name of the product manager for a product using this neologism. Empty Buffer (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User Workspace Management refers to the delivery of IT services to an end user that are relevant to or needed by that end user at a certain time, date, location and on a certain computing device. Examples of these IT services are software applications, printers, data, network shares or personal settings. Huh? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 22 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgate Technology

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

Contested PROD - Company fails WP:CORP no significant coverage - see here Codf1977 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable coverage to meet the criteria for WP:CORP. -- role^player 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A a developer of data collection software, yet another rather ordinary tech business with no claim to historical, technical, or cultural importance, using Wikipedia as a free ad host. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARES Corporation

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

Not a notable consulting business. Contested proposed deletion. References provided are internal, based on press releases, profile pages, or simply quote business personnel as sources. Google News yields press releases and routine announcements. No indication that this business "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Did you take time to even read the article? This is a very notable business that is having a significant impact on society, science, and economics. Please take time to read the article, building a plant that will produce 15 million gallons of biodiesel fuel is notable in itself. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article when I nominated were: a link to a company website, a dead link to a press release, another dead link to an online "community" site, a local story about their failure to build the biodiesel plant as planned, and four more links to the company website. What I found when I looked myself was not more promising. I don't think I miscategorized the sources given. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the references, then you can address them through editing the page or proposing the edits on the discussion page. Issues with references does not mean the subject of the article is non-notable, that is causation. Instead of jumping to an AFD, recommending improvements to the page is preferable in accordance with WP policy. This is especially true when the article in question is 3.5 years old. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Jimmy Wales put it, we "attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something." The question is whether this consulting business with a few government contracts has any long term historical significance. I looked, and found nothing better than what was in the article, which does not appear to make this rise to that level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article needs to be improved but according to [4] it is notable. Dewritech (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NASA reference barely tops three sentences. Not really coverage, the paragraph in question merely reiterates that the company exists, they're a small business contractor for the ISS and that NASA likes the work they're doing for them. 2 says you, says two 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to do what your doing. You can find a small clause in WP:RS to discredit almost any link out there. This link may not have significant coverage, but others do. This reference, in conjunction with others, proves the company is notable. NASA is a very well-respected government entity and to be 1 out of 3 companies to receive an award from them causes ARES Corporation to stand out in their niche. The company is notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are standards of coverage that are supposed to be uniformly applied to all references. 2 says you, says two 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company is not notable, and the original author is on an obvious campaign to promote the company and its products on Wikipedia. (All of these articles are under AfD discussions.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for 3 years. You need to work on assuming good faith. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of an article has absolutely, positively nothing to do with whether or not an article should be deleted. You have created or done major work on articles related to the company which are promotional in nature. Assuming good faith is one thing, but ignoring a pattern of action is quite another. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles being "promotional in nature" is your opinion. I mentioned that the article had been around for 3 years so that you would pick up on the fact that i'm not the original author of this page, which you still haven't figured out. "I worked on articles related to the company"... obviously. This is a result of me interpreting a WP Guideline the wrong way and branching out this companies products into seperate articles, instead of keeping it on the same article. "ignoring a pattern of action". I'm not asking you to ignore your insticts, but rather your inherent bias to that any attempt to work on an article must mean i'm associated with the company and must mean i'm trying to promote it. Which neither is true. See my previous response to your comment on the Avert Page, first attempt at a major re-write + WP's random article feature = This Bsanders246 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but you can understand when one person works on a series of article about a company and its products, there is often an attempt to promote that company in violation of WP guidelines. I've seen it too many times here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)

I understand where your coming from. It probably wasn't the best idea to attempt my first re-write on a company. At least I learned a few things about notability/reliable sources and the deletion process. Bsanders246 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (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. no consensus for deleting - any merging can be discussed at the talk page JForget 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placid Casual

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP, only claim to any form of notability is that of association. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Super Furry Animals. Surely option other than deletion can be considered?--Michig (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can - and don't call me Shirly... The worst case option for this is to redirect to the bands' article, per point 4. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"before nominating an article for deletion" - I like the sound of that.--Michig (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the label has put out albums by numerous bands, most of whom are notable. By the nominator's logic no record companies would have articles. Cavie78 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge at the very least. The label has taken on notable bands, and WP:INHERITED is not really a valid counter-argument here. Being the record label and essentially the contracting agency behind a notable group of musicians is different than if this were an article about, say, one of the band member's sister. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily notable, was this nominated as a joke or something? Jeni ^(talk) 23:25, 20 June 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase Records

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

Non-Notable student record label. Unreferenced. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator appears not to have seen the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors appear not to have found those sources in the preceding four and a half years. — Jeff G. ツ 18:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But those sources were found (easily), and identified on the article's talk page, well before you nominated it for deletion. I find it worrying that you appear neither to have searched for sources nor looked at the article's talk page before deciding that it should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the label has earned 3 Grammy nominations, wouldn't that establish notability? The claim is made on the college website, but an outside source would be nice. JNW (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. JNW (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references now found. Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 20 June 2010 (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. no one in favor of deletion MINUS the nom JForget 14:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Johnson Records

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a record label, and an important one from the 1980s. If it had been run as a 'company' it may not have gone out of business. Ron Johnson Records was one of the most significant (genuine) independent labels of the 1980s, contributing five tracks to the NME's era-defining C86 compilation, and releasing 34 records of which 12 were hits on the independent chart. Like most 1980s labels, the bulk of the coverage that exists is in print magazines such as NME, Melody Maker, etc., that are not available online. Label owner Dave Parsons was included in International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 based on this label - the book lists Ron Johnson Records as winning the award for Independent Label of the Year in 1986. Google Books shows plenty of sources, most without preview available. The fansite linked in the article is by Rhodri Marsden - journalist for The Independent and keyboard player in Scritti Politti. The label's sound is still being identified as an influence today (see this). Deleting this would be really silly.--Michig (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Part of a series of bad faith nominations by this user. Jeni ^(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (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. One strong keep rationale + 3 "per nom" deletes = no consensus with leave to renominate in a few weeks to produce better discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISLA Bank

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches find more results for a holiday cottage in Scotland. Restricting the search to the Philippines just shows directory listings and nothing to establish WP:notability noq (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Holiday cottage in Scotland sounds interesting DRosin (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep - Although the evidence isn't quite so strong as I'd like. The notability criteria should be out of WP:COMPANY and not just the general vague notability preference here. A Google test may not necessarily be the best possible source of information in this case, and I'm unfortunately not familiar with sources in the Philippines to provide a more useful source of information to help out in this case. With the only current "source" of information being the official website, I find that to be dubious, but I'm quite certain that there are some additional sources of information for this institution that could be found to meet the raw sourcing requirements. The real hook, something that makes this more than just another bank, is something that would be useful for the article. In this sense, notability is the issue and if something more about the bank being "established from a rich Filipino heritage" could be defined or expanded... what heritage they are really talking about in the article could make this something useful. At the moment, it reads like an advertisement and not something encyclopedic. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy deletion tag was removed first by the article's author, and then after it was restored, by an editor with no other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (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 Michael Corrente. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verdi Corrente Productions

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

This article has existed a few weeks now, with multiple problems. Summarize: reads link an advertisement, no notability, nothing links here, no reliable sources, and author has edited only this page and Inkubus, which leads me to believe this is a single-purpose account. No non-trivial third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on enhancing the page's objectivity as well as providing links and references for the company. It seems that it is a professional production outfit. I agree the page needs work.User:HarvardGenius

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable information to Michael Corrente. All I can find are press releases and passing mention. This company has not yet released a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan James

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8 was to list at AfD for potential notability issues. This is a procedural, neutral nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is one of the UK's best-known bookmakers, as a cursory glance at the Google News search linked above will confirm. I'm flabbergasted that we didn't have an article on such a notable subject until a couple of weeks ago, and disappointed, but not surprised (but disappointed that I am not surprised), that the kneejerk reaction to the creation of this article was to nominate it for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The article needs expanding and tidying up, but Stan James is a major company that has been sponsoring world championships such as this for years and has much coverage. Nuttah (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is difficult to get at the coverage due to their sponsorship of high profile events clogging up the results. However, they are a well known company in the UK. If you dig deeper in the gnews results, you get stuff like this, which is decent coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article does not state notability.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the nom is a 'neutral' procedural nomination which logically entails that your 'per-nom' vote become a neutral vote. You may want to read the discussion before placing your vote. A brief look at the above tools shows that the topic is clearly notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now expanded the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having said at DRV (without being able to see the article) that the speedy deletion should be overturned, I was sadly disappointed by the article when it was revealed. It scarcely made any attempt at claiming notability. It has now been considerably improved and makes credible notability claims, backed with references. Thincat (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (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 T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bop Cassettes

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

Record label, who may have had some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 5 years. Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember reading about Bop in music mags back in the late 80s. This coverage exists, it just needs someone to dig it out of the archives. The label had several releases in the upper reaches of the UK Independent Chart. The label was discussed in Derek Wynne's book The Culture industry: the arts in urban regeneration and also in Steve Redhead's The end of the century party: youth and pop towards 2000. Releases also included the (fairly classic) Manchester North of England compilation. I believe the Scam label was also a subsidiary of Bop - releases included Dub Sex, Social Kaos. An important label from a key era in the Manchester music scene.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added one source.--Pink Bull 02:25, 22 June 2010 (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. –MuZemike 01:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Records

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

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significance is not a question. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The artists are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until notability is established using multiple 3rd party sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy and significant roster of artists; important in its genre as such. Meets WP:MUSIC's definition of "one of the more important indie labels". Chubbles (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - as per above. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking at another separate AfD that I was commenting in, I am changing to keep. Now that I look closer, I see that the label does in fact have notable artists associated with it. And I do not believe WP:INHERITED is even remotely appropriate here, because, as I said in the other AfD, being signed on a record label is much different than the type of "association" that is mentioned in WP:INHERITED. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:INHERITED is exactly right here - I am not saying that having notable artists associated with it does not bring the company notability, it might, but that has to be demonstrated by significant coverage of it's own just having notable artists associated and saying that it is notable as a result is a case of WP:INHERITED. With out the significant coverage of it's own this company fails WP:CORP.Codf1977 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some above argued against deletion... Chubbles (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company - Seems to be part of a mass nomination of record labels which the nominator seems to have something against.

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.

Business Proposed deletions

Please hide this entire section when empty

Fringe economics

Businesspeople

Tim Sheehy (American politician)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. I would like to see this restored as a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Montana, but my attempt to redirect this was reverted (as was a previous attempt) and this is my best option. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Montana. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph James Nantomah

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

Life coach, serial entrepreneur, but I don't see any significant independent coverage. The only articles I see are praising the guy's amazing skills in his voice. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to advertorial/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmar Movsumov

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

The person does not meet WPGNG or Anybio; he was the head of some state-owned companies or held other similarly non-notable positions. BoraVoro (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Fenk

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

Procedural nomination Page creator has twice tagged this page for speedy deletion, but since the page has been on the pedia for almost ten years and others have edited it, I was forced to decline the speedy, as was the admin who declined User:Mfenk's second tag. It seems likely this is a coi situation, but I'm not making such a case here. I'm seeing a BLP subject of little public recognition which may not meet GNG or ANYBIO. I'll leave answering that question to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Germany. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two PR items about an appointment to a board of directors are all I find about this individual. What's used in the article is a story about a company where he's worked and a bio. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall (entrepreneur)

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

WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read

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

Not seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Owor

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

BLP of the chair of a rotary club who is also a successful HR professional. I don’t see anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uganda. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be retained because of the following reasons;

Asking ourselves questions

If we were to determine notability using the criteria that you have followed then we would be asking our selves;

Is Denis Toussaint Lesage is also notable or not? He was a successful deputy of his time
What is so special about that president of a certain country as there has been more presidents before him that have done great things?
What makes that CEO notable as their are people who have done what he has done.As in he founded a company but their are big companies than what he founded, etc
Does one being a member of a certain club, association or secret organisation make that person notable?

But according to the;

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, He was covered by New Vision and also Daily Monitor which are national newspapers.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria: Particularly the Any biography, he won the "The Business transformation leader" Award at the HR Reveal Awards 2021, if it was an easy to win award, then all Human Resource Managers would be having it, and Would Milton Owor not be included in the Biographical dictionary of Uganda?
I also believe that this article followed the WP:BLP that is particularly; Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR) and also the WP:BLPSTYLE

He is not just a HR professional at the NSSF Uganda, not everyone can be in that position. But he also won a top HR award in Uganda for his profession. B722N (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true that New Vision and Daily Monitor mention him, but neither piece is in depth coverage of him and does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Everything else we have for sourcing us either from organisations associated with the subject, or a non-notable award. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest challenges faced by African Wikipedians is getting in-depth references that talk about people they are writing about. Most of the content in the newspapers and books is just a paragraph or a sentence. Very few Ugandans have books written about them or entire newspaper pages dedicated to them.

I request that you check most of the Ugandan Wikipedia articles and check whether their references have entire pages dedicated to the people that have been written about. Most of that information comes from their personal or company websites which are mostly not written with Neutral Point of View. And then the information from those websites is backed up with those paragraphs and sentences that have been found the notable media sites and publications.

Even most of newspaper articles about the profile of a person is usually tagged as sponsored content and you know that as long as an article drives sales or generates clicks or they have been paid then they will have to publish it. And how many international media houses are going to write about the profiles of Ugandan people in depth from childhood to education to their careers. They will just write a paragraph about the career and working experience.

And for the awards, what makes the award notable?

Should we be only considering the Grammy Awards or the BET Awards as the notable awards and not the top Ugandan Awards that awards their Ugandan musicians.

Or we should only be considering the Komla Dumor Award as the only notable award for journalists and not the awards that are given by the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) because they are not recognized anywhere apart from Uganda.

I understand that we are doing the deletions to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia and that not everybody deserves to have a Wikipedia article since it is not an advertising platform.

And also you are not tagging these articles in bad faith but it is for the greater good. But how are we going to increase the African content on Wikipedia yet the articles written with the fewer references that are harder to get are also being deleted. If the article did follow guidelines such as WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the tone was harsh.

I suggest that this article should be retained.

And also instead of deleting the published articles, they should be moved back to the draft space where someone can wait for 6 months before even getting a reference that writes about that person in depth. But at-least it gives the editors another chance to look deeper for the reference to find the new references that have written.

These kinds of deletions demotivate new editors, they will end up losing interest in contributing to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation especially if they tried to follow the guidelines for writing the articles about different topics. B722N (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people are one of the most challenging types of article. A lot get deleted because we have a very high threshold for notability where they're concerned. I’ve no doubt there are many articles to be written on Uganda-related topics, using ordinary newspapers and other sources, where they won’t be challenged - that’s why newer users are often advised to avoid BLPs to start with. I’ve no objection to this article being draftified if there are in fact better sources that will clearly demonstrate notability. But draftification is pointless unless those sources probably exist. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time @Mccapra and enlightening me. All of your points have been noted. B722N (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Economics. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winfried W. Weber

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: citations to work seem negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF. While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career. Waqar💬 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Douglas

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. References are mostly worthless, and the highest level of rugby he played at appears to be Scottish National League Division One. Uhooep (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Rugby union, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Most of the references are tenuous or not even relevant at best. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the history/page creator its arguably Wikipedia:Autobiography. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is mentioned in some newspaper coverage of a tech company that he was chief executive of, when it was looking for and then secured some substantial investment. The Scotland on Sunday article had his name in the article title and described him as a serial entrepreneur, but I couldn't find much other coverage of him beyond the articles related to his role at GSI. Other links relate to participation in sports, or family members. I don't see that notability has been established here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Nigel played sport at a high level. He is a black belt at judo". Vanity page. doesn't meet sports bio notability and WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the COI/autobiography issue, there is no evidence of him being notable for either judo or rugby. I found a business database entry for the company he co-founded and it says there are only 11 total employees. There is nothing that shows he meets any WP notability criteria. He has family members that seem more notable than him, but WP notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gazit

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

Businessperson that lacks notability. References on the article are either unreliable/primary or are about ThetaRay, not the subject of the article. Brandon (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find PR items about ThetaRay, nothing for this individual. Not meeting notability for individuals or business. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [5] and reviews of a book he co-authored [6] and [7] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not seem to be a review from what I can see. The second is a vanity publisher & therefore effectivlt self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having written a book isn't enough to meet the relevant standard. Indeed, the usual rule-of-thumb is that an author has to have received multiple reviews for each of multiple books in order to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni

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

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.

Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Chhillar

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

Contested draftify. User:Procyon117 moved over to draft due to poor sourcing but this was reverted by the creator. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG or WP:BIO are met here. The references presented represent the best that can be found on him, as far as I can see. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-amp-stakeholders20240610181025/		Contains the text The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same	Coverage is mostly about his company	✘ No
https://www.news18.com/business/real-estate-sustainable-living-smart-tech-defining-todays-bespoke-luxury-homes-8940012.html			One brief quote	✘ No
https://insightconvey.com/landmark-welcomes-a-paradigm-shift-in-workspace-luxury-with-the-unveiling-of-the-landmark-sales-office/		No evidence that this is WP:RS	Just one long quote from him	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders-124061000792_1.html	Sponsored article	As above	Coverage is mostly about his company	✘ No
https://www.landmarkgoc.com/	He owns this company			✘ No
https://www.newsvoir.com/news/news/advertising-branding/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders.html		This is clearly a press release		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: Totally agree with the source assessment table. I also searched for in-depth coverage from reliable sources but could not find any. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage and achievements to satisfy notability about the subject. Page also reads as promotion. RangersRus (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is unreliable sources? Please be specific. Also, I am trying to publish my first article, please help me here. Thanks. Johnbt21 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all unreliable. Business Standard has Advertorial disclaimer, "The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same." Source like insightconvoy are views shared by the subject himself. Others are all company sites. News18 have nothing of great significant coverage and noteworthy achievements. RangersRus (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that neither this person nor the company exists? Visit Landmark Cyber Park, Sector-67, Gurgaon, and see for yourself. Meanwhile, all the information mentioned here is true and from reliable sources. Your arguments are baseless. Johnbt21 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Chenfeld

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

Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, United States of America, and Ohio. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Stankevicius

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

No indication of importance. I have a degree, I founded a small consultancy, I wrote some articles, I wrote a book. BrigadierG (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Advertising, Hong Kong, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: I found several personal interviews from established media outlets like Forbes India[8] and GQ[9]. The subject person's business career has also received a certain level of coverage. (See Fortune[10], Forbes[11], and Yahoo! Finance[12]) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A type interviews are primary sources, Forbes India and Fortune are sponsored content, Forbes Georgia and Yahoo are press releases so all of those are also primary and not independent. S0091 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Uría Mendizábal

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

Not a notable person. WP:BIO1E applies; the ordinary coverage of his death are the only sources. List of ETA attacks might be a redirect option. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the death of a businessman is not notable in itself. — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability outside a single event. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Right now, the only sources seem to be basic reports of his death. For a Wikipedia article, we'd need more substantial information about his impact and career. Waqar💬 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario A. Guerra

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No sufficient source to satisfy any application specific or general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact. This, however, features virtually none of the type of content (significant things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, etc.) that we would need to see, and is instead devoted almost entirely to things he did before or after the mayoralty rather than anything he did in the mayoralty — and it's referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the few third-party footnotes come entirely from a weekly community hyperlocal rather than GNG-worthy media of record, and are mainly sourcing things like "former mayor has sports complex named after him" (which is not a notability criterion) and "former mayor pens open letter thanking the community" (which is really just another primary source, since he wrote it himself). This isn't what it takes to get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG as these three sources have significant coverage and are independent as well, hence reliable:
- [13]
- [14]
- [15].

He is a recipient of Romualdo Pacheco Award as well. [16] Macyramps (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struggle to see any sourcing that points to the political impact of the subject, as Bearcat describes. The LA Times articles are a bit better, but one one of them is primarily about the subject, and even that article is just that he was selected to lead a regional association. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Ord

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

Obscure businessman, lacks direct and in-depth coverage as a person (not as a business). Fails WP:GNG. FinnPanda (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one substantial article about him in the Washington Post. I see the court case, but that doesn't say much about him, and the short ACLU article about that isn't independent as they were representing him. Many of the sources listed here do not mention him. I found one brief quote, also in the WaPo. Lamona (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dar

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

Can't find anything beyond a story in the wrap and a handbook by his organization (which has been deleted). Given the lack of an Israeli page, it seems Israeli sources are unlikely as well. One source is not enough for WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Might be notable, seems to be mentioned in a book: [17], but that is a tertiary source about it. Very brief mention here [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Idealist.org -- which he founded, leads and for which he is known -- as a an unnecessary WP:SPINOFF/WP:CONTENTFORK, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Note the huge overlap. gidonb (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Content can't be merged to Idealist.org as this page is a redirect. Is there a different target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief executive officers

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

Ephemeral list with unclear criteria for inclusion. Category:Chief executives by nationality includes more then 12,000 notable subjects, which could potentially all end up in this list. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTDIRECTORY also delete subcategories on a separate AFD deletion. Why do we need this list, or any of the other similar lists? There's a whole bunch of this stuff we could delete. See Category:Lists of businesspeople - why do we need to know how many Jewish persons are in a given area of corporations? And why do we need to know their specific names and birth-death dates? It just goes on and on, with probably nobody updating these lists. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 I've noticed those other lists such as List of Jewish American businesspeople in finance which do not seem to fulfill WP:NLIST. However, they can't be grouped with this nomination, as my concerns for this list are more about WP:SALAT (selection criterion is too broad) and WP:LISTOUTCOMES (ephemeral listings are usually deleted). Broc (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just mentioning in case anyone else wants to create an AFD for any of those . — Maile (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list appears to only have current CEOs of notable companies, even though it's not clearly stated; skimming the categories, I see a lot of former CEOs and executives of non-notable companies or other types of entities. This list could probably be reorganized to be sorted by country or further limited to, say, Fortune 500 or equivalent companies, as well as removing the few CEOs listed who don't have their own articles either, but it serves a valid navigational purpose. These categories have a lot of people who aren't corporate executives or are notable for other things, so it's not very useful for navigation. I'd further note that the item on the Common Outcomes page was added in 2011 as "Ephemeral listings of current personnel", which is often seen as non-notable people; this is by no means a precedent that applies here and does not ban the concept of things being up to date. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list gets too long, it can split out by nationality. This is far more useful than a category that only list their names, this showing what company they are in, what years they held this title, and how they got their position. Perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to understand the selection criteria for what constitutes a "notable company" or how a "position corresponding" to CEO is defined. As such, this is a WP:NLIST violation. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the CEO and the company both have their own Wikipedia articles, then they are notable. If its notable enough for a category, you can make a far more useful navigational list out of it. Dream Focus 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is a random list with no clear boundaries. What defines a notable company? There must be thousands of CEOs, if not more, this article lists a few hundred. Would be more useful if there were defined boundaries, e.g. of a FTSE 100 or Nasdaq 100. Heronrhyne (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Heronrhyne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dream Focus 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list doesn't seem to be simply a directory, as it provides info about each entry. As for the consern of the list becoming to large, it could always be split into different articles, say by country, if we come upon that bridge. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 00:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list, passes WP:NLIST. Of course it is incomplete and not always up to date, as inevitably with any such list. Edwardx (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: A "random dude" who has spoken at numerous events and been in polls along the other candidates he's running against who do have articles. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Being included in a poll and speaking at events does not prove notability. That's to be expected of just about any candidate in an election. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and political candidates. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Luckily, that's just your opinion and not what is actually expressed regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines you referenced. Then again, I would expect you to know that if you weren't so busy engaging in personal attacks against the opinions of others.

Keep: User @BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.

Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)

In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.

Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.

Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone of personal attacks and then claim their opinion is "stupid". I hope that the closing administrator here can take that into account when assessing this user's viewpoints in this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the note about GNG applying below, the political campaign stuff specifically doesn't apply and the other articles are not about him, so doesn't meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. In almost any political year, non notables run for office, for the free publicity it gives them and/or their non-political careers. This is one of those. He has no past history of political office experience. Most of the article is about is his non-political background. The section "Political career" is misleading, as he's had no career in politics other than a zoning board and town council. Attending a college rally as a spectator in the crowd is not notable. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect (probably with protection this time). As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. Being included in public opinion polls is not a notability criterion, so the attempt above to claim that he's notable because he polled higher in 2024 than some other guy did in the past doesn't wash — that other guy actually held a notable office, so the fact that he didn't win one particular election is irrelevant because he's more than just an unelected candidate by virtue of having held a different NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but absolutely nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that the origional redirect was reverted, I would support any protection level that would keep that from happening again. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Candidates for a state-wide race should be redirected to the election race, as a usual and appropriate outcome, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing does not suggest a GNG pass. I agree that protection should be given to prevent a new article from being created until such time as the subject wins election to an NPOL office. Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald

AfDs for this article:

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

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [19] and [20]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [21] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Torch (company) where he is mentioned. Or his earlier company, Leap Motion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but since his name appears at both we have a classic WP:XY and I would rather not kick this one to RFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:780A:A70F:B434:93EA (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)

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

The person is not notable; highly promo article; sources are about companies nor the person; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. WP:MILL business person. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. No SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV:
1. https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО)
2. https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/
3. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html
See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian

Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine --Perohanych (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Pawelec

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purchase Records}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Johnson Records}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerafy}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISLA Bank}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdi Corrente Productions}}