Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:01, 16 September 2015

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

Businesses

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. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wedholms AB

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

Swedish manufacturer of milk cooling tanks - probably a non-notable specialized company (SPA-created article). No independent sources (in en-Wiki and sv-Wiki), and Google-search revealed only a few passing mentions and catalogue entries. A fish restaurant named "Wedholms Fisk" and a person with the same name are taking up a lot of the Google hits. GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can be actually be improved as I found nothing better than listings at Books and it would seem likely notable given its age but this will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijing Axis

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

The only references I can find on this group are either primary (mostly press releases), name-drops, or quotes from the founder. I can't find any history actually talking about the group from independent sources. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CORPSPAM clearly failing WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 16 September 2015 (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 Keith D (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Inn

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

Not notable. See WP:NPLACE. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that this is a Grade II Listed Building.[8] Grade II doesn't provide inherent notability, but it is a factor in notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is just one ref in the article and those listed above are merely irrelevant articles about The Michelin Star status of the pub, they are repetitive apart from the one noting they poisoned 80 of their patrons! There is no depth in those refs, this is just a promotional page. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, articles about it getting a Michelin Star, winning various other awards, losing its star, as well as general reviews (talking about, inter alia, its ownership and history)? That seems a reasonable survey to me. (I am also the article creator, but I only created it as a stub so I'm not particular attached to it.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's one of six restaurants in Yorkshire to have a Michelin star and, from the category, we have articles on six restaurants in Yorkshire. That feels about right. --Cavrdg (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 08:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs improvement, but a Michelin star and listed building status just about shoves this sufficiently far up the notablility ladder to survive. Suggest that article is moved to a title that includes the locality, as there are other Star Inn's across the UK. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michelin star and listed building. I agree this just about pushes it above the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - Michelin star restaurant and listed building status. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:50, 11 October 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Book of World Records

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

does not meet wiki:notability, also fails miserably on wp:ref Shrikanthv (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be a trend of creating "world records" books or sites and letting people provide their own "records" to be listed. This is one of them. Basically, you fill out a form and send it in [9], and then you get approval. As these "records" may be cited in articles, the reliability of these sources should be clarified at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more news reference. Hope, It helped the article to get improved. I believe this article should not be deleted as several news references i have cited to the article. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is part of a COIN I opened up earlier today, the refs are all local interest puff pieces about the recipients of these "records" not this book. And then there's random links provided to searches. I've cleaned up most of this from the article. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage of the work, fails WP:NWEB. The only review I found was this one in Hindi. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2015 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoverHound

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted but restored upon request of WP:SPA account Anwiley (talk · contribs); (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FCoverHound). Anwiley suggested that the existing coverage is sufficient, pointing to the following four links, which I'll discuss. 1) [10] is a Techcrunch article ""CoverHound Lands $4.5M From RRE, Bullpen & Blumberg To Become The Kayak Of Online Insurance" from 2013. While it is in-depth, TechCrunch covers such events regularly. It is in essence "business as usual"; a start-up getting few millions is nothing that unusual, but it will generate coverage at sites that specialize in chronicling this. Second is a CNET article, [11], "Google may bring auto insurance shopping service to US", which speculates that Google may have some business ties to CoverHound. Nothing worthy of encyclopedic attention here, particularly as it is a speculation. Third, the Boston Globe [12] article just mentions it in passing, this fails the in-depth requirement very clearly.Finally, [13] is an article from PropertyCasualty360 ("A Summit Professional Networks Website") titled "New CoverHound funding allows for expansion in the insurance marketplace"; the site doesn't look reliable or mainstream at all. Overall, I stand by my assessment: despite few articles in minor outlets, some of which are little different from PR / business as usual / we exist pieces, there is nothing to make this pass WP:COMPANY. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, browser and highbeam found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages (WP:NOTYELLOW). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found coverage here, here, here, here and here, but it's probably not enough. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:41, 28 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherami

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

Originally PROD'ed but the tag was removed by an IP user without any claims [14]. No notability claims made in article. References are for the company's website/generic and make no notability claims. Does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY notability criteria. -- R45 ^talk! 01:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This organization doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:corp. I can find proof of the existence of the company and its Android apps, but do not find third-party, neutral sources. However, it being a Trinidad & Tobago company, I will check back to see if anyone with access to local business media has had more success. LaMona (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 22 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Bank

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

Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources are all primary; no other reliable, independent sources found. Small bank, with only 150 employees, without better sources it fails notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:corp. This must have been an article "in progress" when BiH was blocked because the references themselves are stubs. No idea whether there were live references that could have filled these in, but I don't find anything. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (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. In terms of numbers, disapproval for what is assumed to be the promotional motive for the article's creation is matched by opinions noting that it meets the notability guideline. Neither argument compels deletion or retention according to our policies, so it's a draw. Sandstein 08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circle (company)

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

Not notable. & Promotional, There are references, but they are limited to information about the initial funding of the company and PR influenced articles about its possible future prospects. This do not show any RW significance, and, according to WP:N, we are not obliged to make articles about whatever might happen to just slide under the GNG subguideline . In deciding whether to make them, we cshould be influenced by the extent of promotionalism. As for that, look at the next to last paragraph. Furthermore, it's been written by a SPA with two articles to his credit: this, and an article on the firm's CEO. It's reasonable to assume an undeclared conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks WP:TOOSOON per normal AfD
Speedy Delete per undisclosed paid editing. Cutting to a stub isn't the right measure this time. (stable door, horse, bolted) Widefox; talk 10:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or Merge/Redirect to Jeremy Allaire#Circle (in current stub form) as doesn't add any more than the section there. Widefox; talk 22:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe I'm missing something here, but with lengthy articles about the company in Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ over the past 18 months, this isn't an article I'd consider for deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you normally. Need to say that this is part of a promo cleanup - see the connected on the talk. Coming back to normal AfD, what do they do? Where's the beef? Widefox; talk 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says. The wired article for example, is not about the company's accomplishments, which seem to be non-existent, but about the promise of it and what it acknowledges are "a slew of other technical startups" that are trying to do the same thing. In my opinion, articles about the initial financing of a company do not show suitability for an encycopedia. Rather than tinker with the concept of notability, this could best be handled by a new provision in WP:NOT, called perhaps NOT STARTUP. I intend to formally propose this in a week or so-- I'm trying to figure out the best wording. In the meantime we can accomplish the same thing by deleting the articles here -- we can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for raising the bar:

WP:NOTNEWS
- Churnalism - to treat PR/primary sources as primary not secondary
WP:CORPDEPTH - adding to the existing
- "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"
- "announcements of funding rounds of the business" ? Widefox; talk 02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree the Jeremy Allaire article is awful and I'm surprised nothing has been done about it. However, the articles cited in the Circle (company) are in major, respected publications and are substantial, not brief announcements. There are plenty of bloated articles about companies on Wikipedia that are cited to press releases, trade journals and blogs, but this isn't one of them. If we don't trust the NYT and WSJ then we might as well give up, or re-write Wikipedia's ground rules. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hypothetically, removing all the funding round articles, this has WIRED and NYT which are articles with info we can use to write about the subject. It appears useful to raise the bar in this way and provides clarity for assessing notability (this one would be borderline unless more non-excluded sources are added). The proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Depth_of_coverage_--_funding_reports. Widefox; talk 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clear, and easy to see, passing of WP:GNG and WP:CORP per the numerous significant writeups in independent and reliable sources. All discussion of changing policies should be done elsewhere. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung's argument (and the nom) answer that. In guideline form, it's IAR for the improvement of WP plus the guidelines follow best practice, which is in this direction (I believe). Widefox; talk 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I share that sentiment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination). Widefox; talk 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It got financing, so what? Business as usual. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily, per Kudpung's emerging BOGO philosophy nicely articulated above, DGG's emerging NOT STARTUP philosophy, as well as his "lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion" stated elsewhere (my emphasis). WP articles shouldn't be a way for paid actors to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company and its execs. I've been over this ground many, many times at COIN and it just takes time away from adding WP content. As an independent and sufficient rationale, the article is three sentences long and shows little prospect for growing meaningfully – that is beyond mentioning money moving from one bank account to another – until and unless this startup actually produces something; therefore WP:TOOSOON. — Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and please quit this stuff. Passes WP:GNG, no dern question about it. Attempts to redefine WP:GNG should be pursued in talkspace (WT and usertalk). AfD is not for cleanup, and if the article passes WP:GNG as presently written, then nominating for AfD is the wrong thing. AfD is also not for revenge on the eeevilll allegedly undisclosed paid editors, either, there is a tool for that, and both Kudpung and DGG possess said tool. Bangkeep rationale, using only the extant refs, just for kicks: WSJ Apr'15,[15] && Wired Apr'15,[16] plus Boston Globe Mar'14,[17] && NYT Mar'14.[18] make me strongly suspect that WP:GOOG might just hold a few more WP:SOURCES about the company. But even if it didn't, those four seem sufficient, to my wiki-eyes, to pass WP:GNG as currently written.

Now, to be fair, this one is straight republication of PR, and I've removed it from mainspace.[19] The others I mention ARE NOT regurgitated press releases, they are impeccably WP:RS, and if you don't like it, get WP:RS and/or WP:GNG redefined. But stop WP:IDONTLIKEIT here at AfD, please pretty please. Or at least, target something *worthy* of getting booted from wikipedia, like Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber, not corporate vehicles like Circle (company) where millions of dollars are involved... oh. Right. Uh... hmmm... maybe I better rethink my WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the teen-pop-stars, huh, if I think that millions of bucks tied up in Circle_(company) and the corresponding press-coverage is wiki-notable, then maybe Hannah Montana as the vehicle for Disney advertising is also wiki-notable? Could be a teachable moment here.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally false analogy. Hannah Montana has a measurable effect on culture. Maybe pop culture, but culture nonetheless. Which is why we have Hannah Montana discography and other things. What would be the difference to the world if Circle had never been created? — Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not false whatsoever: both are young creatures, being used by hypercorps, to generate ROI. Measurable impact: mainly, that Goldman Sachs would still be calling bitcoin 'not a safe store of value' rather than investing fifty million bucks? Whether this has an outright-revolutionary effect on society (business&consumer society but society nonetheless), over the next two decades, or "merely" an economic impact on the ecommerce business and globalization of finance, depends on WP:CRYSTAL, but that single sea-change event has legitimized bitcoin as a payment-transfer-system, if not necessarily as a currency. This isn't me blabbering, this is why the most recent coverage-burst made the LATimes/etc. See the nearest WP:GOOG, or the article-talkpage. Granted, it's not as big as walmart.com hypothetically saying they'll henceforth be accepting bitcoin, but it's a definitive shift from edgy, to edgy-but-mainstream. That said, as you know very well, this thread is ENTIRELY out of scope for AfD... where we decide whether WP:GNG has been demonstrated, not muse about 'true' cultural and societal impact. If the WP:42 fits, you must acquit. There's a very good reason that we use WP:GNG, rather than philosophical discussion amongst wikipedians about what is truly and really and measurably 'important' ... because WP:GNG is something we all can agree on, more or less. Hannah Montana does not belong in the encyclopedia, but she does pass WP:GNG, so I don't try deleting her -- nor her discography. Quid pro quo, is that people who dislike corporations, money, startups, business, bitcoin, investing, crytography, and whatever else seems to be the hang-up here at this AfD, should not be trying to delete *this* article, since it also so passes. WP:GNG is a long-standing compromise, and it shall not be successfully be redefined here at AfD, methinks, whether this one or another one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like people to stop telling me what to talk about at AfD. As you yourself have noted elsewhere [20], IAR is on the table at debates. But more to the point, these debates create "Wiki case law" where precedents and parameters for valid arguments are established and reinforced. This isn't a trivial objection like "I don't like their circular logo"; this is a debate deeply grounded in interpretation of WP notability and the broader issue DGG raised that WP:GNG is a reason to delete, not always a reason to keep, in the case of promotional editing (apologies if I have misrepresented). — Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's what I say too. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, perfectly fair assessment. Truth be told, I suspect I'm annoyed at AfD being used as a way to re-define GNG, mostly because I believe many AfD regulars are deletionists. ;-) I am happy to stop telling you both what to do, and will do so immediately, apologies if anyone was put out. :-) But I'm also happy that you admit you are pulling out-of-process WP:IAR here, and not using AfD for the wiki-traditional function of determining whether WP:GNG (as presently written) has in fact been demonstrated. Circle actually has 42 sources, quite literally, which seems to be what the proposed neo-WP:42 definition we are discussing here would require for corp-articles henceforth... except that, you know, sources about fifty million in funding are not REALLY wiki-reliable sources, so we can delete those, and these other sources in the business section, no boring business news is ever REALLY wiki-notable so let us delete those sources.... You catch my drift. I hate it when people advocate deleting things as 'not encyclopedic' ... especially sources. Anyways, I'll keep my whining about this-is-not-the-place to myself. Because I too love WP:IAR, and I too would like to see some real solutions for the problems being (somewhat tangentially) discussed here. I just strongly disagree that it is any kind of 'solution' is to selectively redefine GNG and delete half a million articles. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.108.94.227 Do you have any evidence for a "ROI"? Else that whole argument is WP:CRYSTAL and, in fact, underlines WP:TOOSOON. As for telling others what to do, you can add me to your list making three not two. It's a bit boomerang here, as it comes across WP:ILIKEIT (and don't like Hannah Montana), and if we delete this we must delete 1/2 million articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. No kittens (or Hannah Montana articles) will be hurt by this AfD. The bigger the investment WP:NEWS is, the more likely there's something encyclopaedic going on sooner or later, but this isn't Yellow Pages, Linked-in or Techcrunch. We have no duty to list all funded startups. Don't get me wrong, GNG vs promo - two valid opinions to take here. I'm voicing my concern that this should be transparent and a free decision, at a point where the promo weeding needs doing and maybe replanting. Do we want to replant before the weeds are gone, including all their invisible roots?

Coming back to the point, the sources all look too shallow to build a useful encyclopaedic article on what they do. It's already covered in his article. Widefox; talk 09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainly because I found plenty more sources which show that coverage isn't restricted to the two rounds of funding that all the current RS present in the article stem from: e.g. Dec 14 Sep 14 Oct 13. If these aren't sufficient to meet WP:CORP then we need to delete hundreds of thousands of articles. While I understand the sentiment of the !deletes with regards to discouraging promotional editing, the article has been cleaned up and this isn't the place for argue for exceptions from well-established guidelines. Deleting articles purely because of them being the result of PE has never been policy and for good reason as we'd be spiting ourselves. There are plenty of good sources available which could be used to write a neutral and informative article. SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as we'd be spiting ourselves" Agreed, crucial point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, the key sentence in the NYT story seems to be this: "another indication that leaders in the traditional financial services industry are now taking digital money seriously". WSJ: "Circle's offering isn't ground breaking". Forbes: "Circle's entry into the market adds another business with serious funding and experience attempting to take the 4-year-old Bitcoin into the mainstream". I can see where you're coming from, but I still see the sources saying not-yet-notable startup attempting to do something important. Maybe these sources should be added to the Bitcoin article, or to wire transfer instead? — Brianhe (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeremy Allaire for now as although the article is better sourced now, in any case, it may be closer connected to him until the company establishes itself more. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or redirect to Jeremy Allaire. The references right now are all due to their fundraising activities. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is WP:TOOSOON, at least. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Alden, William (2014-03-26). "Start-Up Unveils Bitcoin Payments Product". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  The article provides a detailed profile of Circle.
2. Vigna, Paul (2014-05-16). "Jeremy Allaire's Bitcoin Start-Up, Circle, Unveils First Product". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
3. Newton, Casey (2014-05-16). "Circle wants to be your friendly neighborhood bitcoin bank". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
4. Alba, Davey (2015-04-30). "This Digital Wallet Could Finally Get You Into Bitcoin". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  The article provides a detailed profile of Circle, adding a footnote about the funding in the second-to-last paragraph.
5. Shieber, Jonathan (2014-05-15). "Circle Emerges From Stealth To Bring Bitcoin To The Masses". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
6. Cutler, Kim-Mai (2014-04-29). "Jeremy Allaire Opens His Long-Awaited Bitcoin Product Circle Up To The Public". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
7. Kokalitcheva, Kia (2014-09-29). "Circle launches Bitcoin wallet for the average Joe — anywhere in the world". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
8. Leibel, Michael (2014-05-16). "Circle's new Bitcoin service is so easy your parents could use it". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The sources discussed above by Cunard and others could be the basis of an article that actually describes the company and what it does. But what we have now appears to be purely a vehicle for investment promotion. Look what a good value this company is! Famous people poured money into it! Feh. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the article certainly can be expanded, the article is neutrally written and reliably sourced. WP:TNT clearly does not apply. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Amp

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

Yet another .Announcement and press releases and no actual accomplishments except the usual rapidly growing, which is very easy when you start from zero. I'm getting tired; this is the last one I will nominate tonight--there will be another batch tomorrow. There is something to be said for doing all of these at once, rather than one at a time at AfD, but I've always been a supporter of giving every article from a chance) DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although this is neat and sourced, I found no better coverage thus less chances of better improvement. Feel free to draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LD Products

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

Here's another non notable company with a promotional article by the same paid editor. An article where one of the 5 paragraphs is devoted to its headquarters meeting an high environmental standard obviously has nothing worth saying. Claiming to be "one of the largest" of anything without any actual evidence, let alone evidence from a third party source, is mere puffery. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although it may be the largest of its field, I found no better coverage with the best results here and here (basically mostly PR). SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches didn't turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 19 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Another article by a paid editor for a non notable company. The references may look impressive, but they are almost entirely notices and press releases, or awards that do not qualify for notability. The awards of for being a new company, which is what "fastest-growing" almost always means. In Wikipedia terms, the meaning of that is "not yet notable" "Best places to work" is a trivial award, and should not even be included in articles. An award from the communication company Polycom is an award from a business partner, and meaningless for notability. As a low point of absurdity, one of the references is for running Linux on one of its servers! As for promotionalism, the effort in the Awards section to show the importance of unimportant awards makes it clear enough.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be quickly removed it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. The only usable-ish sources are local, which is not enough to show notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orangemoody is but an example of the problem. Best guess is that we have so far identified fewer than half the articles that ring is responsible for, but that would still just be about 1000. My estimate is that we have at least 50,000 articles of this sort on organizations, and at least an equal number on individuals associated with them. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DGG and Kudpung said it all. Re Nextiva's "independent coverage", read http://www.nextiva.com/voip/the-power-of-the-press-release.html and then read`http://www.nextiva.com/company/news.html (Nextiva.com is blacklisted, hence no live links). Companies that hire expensive PR firms get even more of this bogus "coverage". See:

Felix Salmon (November 23, 2010). "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR", Columbia Journalism Review

It should be required reading in assessing the notability of business-related articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete. I don't see anything wrong. Why delete this page I am sure they will make the right changes give them a chance. Look at what they are doing right. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2015/06/how-nextiva-plans-toreinvent-businesses-phone.html please don't delete this page. "fastest-growing" was back then. Give them a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yet another press release-based puff piece from the local business newspaper consisting of Nextiva's's CEO and VP touting their own company. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbhg7: Please disclose per WP:AFDFORMAT whether you have a vested interest in the article, see WP:AVOIDCOI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Kudpung I have nothing to do with that page. I am just saying its worth to keep the page and not remove it. This page brings users useful information. And I am not affiliated with the company. Maybe some references need to change its not a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Verbhg7 has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I would also agree with Verbhg7 to Keep this page alive. Just stumbled across the discussion. I am also not associated with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingglass (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 September 2015 — Kingglass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Just stumbled...' Kingglass - Looks like you hit the ground running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kingglass:has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome I would just like to welcome Verbng7 and Kingglass and congratulate them on their very first edits [21] [22]. I hope they become productive members of the Wikipedia community. It usually takes a couple hundred edits, minimum, for new users to start in at AfD so these guys are way ahead of the curve. Jbh ^Talk 20:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment What an amazing coincident that one registers as an editor 15 minutes after the other, with an identical style of writing. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-serving promotion has no place on Wikipedia. Just wanted to be on the record before it's SNOW closed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogPoint

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

Article by paid editor; small company with no significant accomplishments -- refs though real are clearly PR DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs are real, but not significant. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article by a paid advocate, making it effectively, advertising, Richard Harvey (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kudpung. BMK (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better coverage is available as although my searches found results here and here, there could be better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 16 September 2015 (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. two relists later, and there's absolutely no consensus here. Someone should check the Arabic sources before considering renomination. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Mall

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

I prodded this with the reason, "A non-notable, still under construction mall. At the very least WP:TOOSOON. The article's creator contested the prod with "The mall is considered to be the hugest in the city, it also lies in the middle of an economic district. Opening in about 3 months so its not that early" - none of which matters regarding notability. Currently the references include 3 press releases and the mall's website. Searches on the engines returned nothing to show this mall meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 million square ft, which , by our usual practice is certainly enough for notability. (the usual cutoff is 1 million). It's a reasonable assumption that appropriate soures can be found . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Is the 1 million cutoff for the total area or the Gross leasable area? While the total area of this mall is around 2 million sq ft the gross leasable area(which is usually in the infobox, in this case the infobox is incorrect) is only 614,850 sq ft. Most malls don't even mention what the total area is do they? Me5000 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, because they are typically parking lots and the associated internal roads. They do not really imply anything about importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability and the Gross leasable area is only 614,850 sq ft well below the 1 million cut-off, so this shouldn't be kept on the basis of size either. Me5000 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources are in Arabic, hold up... I will add the references shortly, also its a $300 million project. Its definitely notable ^[1] --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having worked on mall articles in many countries, I note it can be a pain to source with non-English sources, but this a large project and one can see it is notable from the amount of coverage it is getting. Give Makeandtoss a chance to supplement the sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has a gross leasable area of 775,000 square feet. The normal internal non-leasable area (i.e., hallways, bath rooms, food court, etc.) would put this mall's total internal area well within reach of 1 million square feet. I have always assumed the size cutoff was based on total floor area. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - neither of the prior two comments really give a valid rationale for keeping. Size is not a reason, and simply noting that there is coverage, without providing it, and searches do not appear to agree with that statement, doesn't really make a strong argument to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I managed to find one more source in English please check it out, as I said before you will not find much on this in English... Its costs $300 million to build, how is that not notable? --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a stub. Tag it and let it be as there are some articles that point to it. Not outright notable but has some significance. - Pmedema (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly a case of TOOSOON. A $300M mall project is going to generate substantial press coverage, of that we can be sure.Carrite (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a quick search of the Jordan Times (I'm not qualified to check the Arabic sources) and a dozen articles at least mentioning the development came up. Not a great article at this time, but meets WP:NOTABILITY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan

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

This is someone's personal view. As if a journalist writing a newspaper column. Action Hero Shoot! 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there could be a better-written article about the court case, but it is not clear that the court case is notable in itself. Perhaps a sentence or two in the Jordan or Nike articles would be more appropriate. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free host for personal essays Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2015 (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. No prejudice to re-creation of a neutral article, provided in-depth sources, not based on press releases, can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One97 Communications

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

Promotional article on probably non-notable company, from now-banned promotional editor. Kept earlier on the basis of multiple refs in Highbeam, but they seem all to have been multiple reprints of press releases about various funding arrangements. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One97 Communications and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One97 Communications (2nd nomination) participants: Joseph2302 (talk · contribs), Richard Harvey (talk · contribs), CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs), Winner 42 (talk · contribs), Brianhe (talk · contribs), CorporateM (talk · contribs), TTTommy111 (talk · contribs), VegasCasinoKid (talk · contribs), Esquivalience (talk · contribs), VMS Mosaic (talk · contribs), and FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Aulakh, Gulveen (2014-01-16). "One97 to step into online retailing with mobile market app". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
2. Bhattacharjee, Nivedita; Tripathy, Devidutta; Ruwitch, John; Thomas, Denny (2015-02-05). Fahmy, Miral; Cushing, Christopher (eds.). "Alibaba's Ant Financial to buy 25 pct of India's One97". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
3. Doval, Pankaj (2015-08-01). "No controlling stake for Alibaba in Paytm parent One97: Founder". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
4. Abrar, Peerzada (2011-10-10). "SAP Ventures invests $10 million in Delhi-based One97 Communications". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
5. Thoppil, Dhanya Ann (2015-01-10). "Alibaba to Invest About $575 Million in Indian Online-Shopping Service, Paytm: China's Alibaba and Affiliate Zhejiang Ant to Take 30% Stake in One97 Communications, Source Says". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
6. Shu, Catherine (2015-02-05). "Alibaba's Financial Affiliate Takes 25% Stake In India's One97, Owner Of Paytm". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
7. Abrar, Peerzada (2012-12-18). "One97 Communications acquires MobiVite to consolidate footing in mobile marketing space". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
8. Chaudhary, Apurva (2013-08-08). "Updated: One97 Communications Acquires IM App Plustxt For $2M". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
9. Peer, Nikita (2014-12-09). "One97 Communications to provide VAS services to West African telco Glo Benin". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One97 Communications to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Circumstances have not changed since the first nomination. The company is 15 years old, employs 1200+ people and has sufficient reliable sources for inclusion, which is more than many other smaller company articles in the UK have. Note that One 97 is notable as the parent company of Paytm, which has never been marked for deletion. If this article is suitable for deletion then the other should also be deleted by default. NB: I have noted a tag on the article indicating a major contributor may be involved with the company, but does not indicate who, yet there does not appear to be a single 'major contributor' shown in the article editing history, therefore that tag is misleading and should be removed. As the Chinese company Alibaba Group only own 25% of the company then there is no need to redirect it to them, as it is not a wholly owned 'subsidiary company'. Tata also own shares and you cannot redirect an article to two others. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard Harvey:. The major contributor with a COI is User:BiH who created the article. SmartSE (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse:. Thanks for the info. I had not realised the article was created by a paid advocate! In the circumstances I will change my stance and support Delete. Regardless of what is on the article in my mind it is original research. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Harvey:. If you have changed your mind, you should strike the "Keep" in your original comment. As for Paytm, that should be deleted as well, in my view. The usual story, 5-year-old start up referenced to a plethora of PR schlock, impeccably formatted and helpfully added by the same editor, who created One97. Observe this addition and what the Paytm article looked like just before his ministrations. Voceditenore (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alibaba Group - Promotional article for non-notable company. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least redirect to Alibaba Group. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? They are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are we deleting because it was from a now banned editor, it is promotional, or it is not notable? Press releases are often the start of news. If it is picked up by reliable sources, then I consider it a reliable source. If it says "press release" on the reliable source and references where it came from, that's different. However, seeing that many of them were picked up by reliable sources and written as an article is a different story. They have plenty of in depth coverage in reliable sources. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given an AFD only occurred a couple of months ago, and nothing has changed, I think this nomination is borderline disruptive. If result is keep, this article should not be nominated again. AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages, and being paid for it. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform or source of income. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. BMK (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promo. NOT. In particular suggest something like raising the bar by e.g. CORPDEPTH excluding funding rounds per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_(company) so this can be made more clear. Widefox; talk 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete. Promotional article. Use WP:IAR to establish consensus that articles created by undisclosed paid editors will be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to establish consensus to establish policy. That is an abuse of process, User:Jbhunley. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As when I proposed deletion the first time, spam about a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry User:Joseph2302. Did you miss the notable sources above that establish "significant coverage in reliable sources"? AusLondonder (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same as last time per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a pretty serious case of WP:GEOBIAS. This is a fairly large Indian company, with thousands of employees, millions in turnover and significant coverage in reliable sources such as the daily Indian business newspaper The Economic Times. I ask all delete-voters here, would they nominate an American company in similar circumstances? With Wall Street Journal coverage? Absolutely shameful. The paid editing aspect is irrelevant, frankly. Clean it up if that is the concern. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geobias may be a factor, or may be a red-herring: not all participants are American and Circle is US, so on balance I'd say evidence would say it's a red-herring. It's a face-value we've got to do something about the undisclosed COI corruption of our standards. We're not guided in this long-term aspect, just in normal day-to-day N. Widefox; talk 21:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent, in-depth coverage to warrant keeping. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 21 September 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DNS Made Easy

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

Promotional article supported entirely by PRIMARY sources (mainly press releases) and name drops. No indication of notability, and the draft version was repeatedly declined for similar reasons. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I don't think the article as it stands establishes notability, I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and it doesn't sound aas if you have either, Primefac or if you have, you don't mention it above. As to the sources, [23] is a reliable source, although the mention of the subject is brief. [24] is a reliable source, and does not seem to be based on a press release. [25] may be reliable, I'm not sure of the credentials of the author. [26] looks to be reliable, but the key content is behind a paywall. I think this needs more checking before a decision is made. If it is kept it must be edited to remove promotional content and puffery, of course. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did check all of those sources, and I did not feel that those sources demonstrated enough detail to demonstrate notability. Obviously if consensus is that I was overly critical, then I'll roll with it. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When I ask if you did a WP:BEFORE search, I mean did you do a net search of your own for other sources, not provided by the article drafter, to see if any of them demonstrated or helped to demonstrate notability? DES ^(talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes, I did do a search, and found more PR and name-drops. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnak you for clarifing that, Primefac. DES ^(talk) 22:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. I don't know why this ended up in article space, but it shouldn't be there. It might eventually be accepted through AfC if the blatant advertising, blatant paid editing and questionable notability are dealt with. Deletion was proposed here by DGG and supported by SmokeyJoe and Sam Sailor, and seems a reasonable alternative.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ended up in article space because someone, i think Wikimoze, did a copy & paste move from Draft space to article space. There is no reason to think that after moving it back to draft space it would stay there, nor that after 5 declines it will prosper there, although it could if the creator and associates were willing. I fear it must be made into an acceptable article during this AfD, or else deleted. DES ^(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and not move to draft space. Having it there did not produce any improvement in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future. The MfD already deleted it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the MfD didn't delete this or any version of it. It looked like it was heading to a delete outcome, but still had lots of time to run, when it was interrupted by the HistMerge, and made moot by the opening of this AfD. It is possible (but unlikely) that further eedits could have reverse the trend at the MfD. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To add to the confusion, a new account has recreated Draft:DNS Made Easy on 16 September. I left a message on DGG's talk page in this regards. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because draft was declined so many times even after taking appropriate action and removal external links then that still be nominated for deletion. Not all resources seem to be press release. Please revert it for deletion and improve it yourself instead deleting it. Xandios (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is on those seeking to retain the content to seek sources, not on those seeking to remove it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the draft for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DNS Made Easy (2nd nomination). I considered WP:CSD#G6 but I expected at least a little pushback and didn't want to push the limits of G6. I'm hoping for a "snow" close on the MfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another earlier version of the draft exists at User:ZippyCycle/sandbox as well. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, but found only passing mentions, press releases and the usual social media stuff controlled by the company. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when a dupe of this came up at AfC, I declined it there due to notability. Searches turned up nothing but (as Primefac and Cullen328 point out), mentions and press releases. No in-depth, independent coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt due to the number of times a promotional article about this company has been drafted, submitted, moved, merged, created and otherwise wasted time of Wikipedians who might otherwise be building an encyclopedia. I was unable to find reliable sources to support notability. Cited sources often either don't support the promotional content or were cherry picked for promotion. For example, the current article states "In 2012, DNS Made Easy made history...DNS Made Easy's network was unaffected by the attack with no effects to end users" but the cited source was dated 2010 and says otherwise. The second paragraph in the lead claims that the company "is the number one provider in market shares" and the cited source supports the claim but other sources don't. Search for "dns service market share" or similar. I found no other source to support the company as number one. The company isn't notable. Articles about DNS Made Easy should be blocked for a while to minimize time wasted, recognizing that it may become notable enough for an article in the future. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny all of you claim wasted time of wikipedians and still be wasting your time in this discussion. Godaddy says "making it the world's largest ICANN-accredited registrar." doesn't this look like a promotional or advertisement? What if DNS Made Easy claims is the number one provider in market shares? There are so many little things on wikipedia and i see people never be interested to read/edit/improve on them but still existing. lol Doctree you're a racist man.. Well close this topic, delete article do whatever you want and stop being biased. Xandios (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvoGames

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

Non-notable organization with no credible claim to significance. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 14:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editions Mego

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

No references or sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was some passing mentions at News and Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability stated in this stub of an article, qualifies under criterion A7. That by itself should do it, but it also fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaby-muller

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

There is no indication that this product is notable. The only reference is the company's own product description. Gronk Oz (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there obviously seems to be not good coverage and my searches found nothing better than a Chinese press release. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant business promotion, IMO. Quis separabit? 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWImusic

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. All google results appear to be self-published or relate to an american company with the same name. Bazj (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N, verified after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 25 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Arshad Ali

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

Article about the CEO of a company. Two local news sources make a very brief mention of him, and the other sources are not independent nor do they seem to meet WP:RS. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no evidence of better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sami ^talk 22:57, 17 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StarTex Software

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

I can find no evidence that this company rises to an encyclopedic level of notability. The page has been repeatedly recreated following deletion as spam. I recommend deleting and salting, until such evidence exists. bd2412 T 18:02, 11 September 2015 (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/2015 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references -- and the contents of the article -- are essentially about the general topic, not the company .There's a reason for that: there are no references to show the ocmpany is notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage and my searches found nothing better than minor links at Books, News and Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP nothing in depth, see guideline. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but I think never. --Bejnar (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (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. My SALT shaker has also been located Courcelles (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Hill Production

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

Fails WP:CORP. To quote from the previous AFD: "I'm not sure this is a notable organization. All the notability asserted is inherited from the films it's either producing or distributing (which is a big difference)."

CSD as re-creation of deleted material was declined as sufficiently different, so I am nominating it for AfD again Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT

It would seem to me that the claims made for this purported production company are just blatantly false.

In previously deleted version of the article, "White Hill Production" claimed credits for real movies including:

and many more.

A simple google search - try this - will demonstrate that this purported production company has nothing whatsoever to do with those films, nor is it a company that distributes them overseas.

--Shirt58 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some research and the company does appear to be real. Best evidence is at IMDB, which has them distributing numerous films. It does sound like they are riding on the coattails of the films they distribute.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "White Hill Production"

Delete for yes, they distribute and produce films but being a distributor or a production company fails WP:ORG if the company itself lacks coverage-beyond-mentions in reliable sources. It has the mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Maybe in a few years. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this company is not known also The article does not have enough resources(Toomass (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systech It Solutions

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

A search for sources only results in press releases or sites which are affiliated with the company. The company claims that it has a number of accreditations and "awards", as well as partnerships with notable companies, although I'm not sure if these are enough to establish notability. Note that the award that the company is sponsoring does not have an article at this time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added references from partner websites which support the claims regarding partnerships with the company. Sophieottaway —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the company may have partnerships with notable companies does not necessarily mean the company is notable. The article must stand on its own merits. Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the company has been nominated as Young IT Professional of the Year 2015 by the British Computing Society. This company is his only project and the main reason for his nomination for the award. I have added this information to the article. The company has also received Microsoft Gold Partnership status, which is held by only 1% of companies across the world. I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Sophieottaway —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found results at News, Books and Google browser, there wasn't anything to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The company is hosting a Microsoft Event on Windows 10 in Hull with Microsoft, from my research this has not been done before. http://www.hull.co.uk/news.asp?PageID=74&MediaCategoryID=3&NewsID=5377&MediaType=news http://www.commerce-industry.co.uk/2015/09/07/top-it-talent-announce-unique-training-opportunity-for-local-businesses/

Also recently Awarded KEMP Centre which means they are the fourth IT Company in the UK to have this status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.201.67 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but what this article is better coverage (preferably third-party such as News and magazine and not self-generated such as PR). This can be drafted and userfied to userspace in the meantime though. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article for a commercial firm. Thinly sourced bizcruft. Carrite (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 3 October 2015 (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 company was found in local papers as small business of the year and the Managing Director has been mentioned as one of the rising stars in technology ? would this not justify existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.61.206 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credit-Land.com

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

This website/company has carefully cultivated a presence on the internet, but as far as I can tell, it's all smoke and mirrors and SEO. Let's look at the six sources currently cited.

1 A Forbes article. Great, right? Except not. This is actually a blog post masquerading as an article. See the tiny blurb on top: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Clicking on the contributor's name to learn more about him 404s. Clearly no notability is conferred by this source.

2 Primary source. Next.

3 Oh look, it's another fake Forbes article. As least this contributor has a bio page. It doesn't matter, though, because the website in question is barely mentioned in this article. And by barely mentioned, I mean not mentioned. There's a single link in the article, "apply for a credit card", that links to credit-land.com, for reasons unknown.

4 A fake Forbes article? You don't say! Written by the same person as before. This time there's an entire quote from a credit-land.com analyst. Needless to say, this is not enough.

5 This is an in-depth "interview" with the editor-in-chief of Credit-Land.com. The interviewer is The Intuit Small Business Blog. The person behind that is a single journalist called Susan Johnston. here is her website, and here is the blog itself. No notability to be found anywhere.

6 I'm starting to really dislike these "articles".

I apologize for the snark. Personal opinion bleedthrough. That said, I think we can fairly objectively establish that none of those sources qualify as reliable.

The good news is that I can find about 20 more "sources" like that without trying. Credit-land.com has really done a lot of work, kudos to their PR team. The bad news is that every single one (that I have found) is paper-thin; lacking content, or reliability, or both. This sort of thing is great for getting search engines to like you. Unfortunately, here we have humans looking at the sources, and these do not remotely pass muster. Ashenai (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know exactly where to talk to u, try to do it here. So, why in the article of some sites from the same category (for example this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Karma) the same reference to Forbes is ok? And some more references to their own(!) blog (Credit Karma Blog) and some other sources that looks like unreliable too (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-30/a-free-credit-report-with-no-strings-attached-dot-honest). Are they more reliable and if so why (for me to know how to make my article about CRedit Land more reliable) or this site (and some other from the category as well) are treated differently?? I understand in general your point of view but what I can't understand is whyyy other sites are ok with even absolutely the same references (like Forbes blog). Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas A 2 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(copying this reply from my talk page) Just because other stuff exists, that doesn't mean it's okay! Wikipedia is imperfect, and we don't see everything. I don't have time to do a detailed check on Credit Karma right now, but I will later; and yeah if the source is bad it needs to be removed.

That said, the main problem with the Credit-Land.com article isn't that it has bad sources; that would not be a valid reason for deletion. The problem is that it has no good (reliable) sources. Not a single one. And I couldn't find any on Google, either. Credit Karma does have sources that look okay at first glance (although I might revise this opinion once I go through them in more detail.) If it turns out that none of its sources are good, either, then I will nominate it for deletion as well. --Ashenai (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. Nice job by Ashenai. If I had simply glanced at this article, I wouldn't have thought twice about keeping. But looking into the sources, their analysis is spot on. In the AfC process, we come across these all the time. I wonder how many of these types of articles exist on the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some more passing mentions. Feel free to draft and userfy to userspace if needed, SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Rome Tours & Walks

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

I don't believe that this company is notable - it is just another travel company. It has been mentioned in the LA Times etc but those refs just tell us that the company exists and how much it charges for the tours as these articles are primarily aimed at travellers Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has been written about in travel sections of news publications around the world. I added a few more, and tried to avoid press releases, personal sites and commercial sites. Sure, the articles are aimed at travelers - just as software articles are aimed at software users and articles about cars are in auto magazines. Some of the articles are reports from travel writers who have taken the tours - just as valid as references as book reviews are for a book article. The company does run non-notable, ordinary tours, but it also has special tours that other tour companies don't do, and that is what has attracted the news coverage.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ann Delong's rationale, coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I suppose as there' enough acceptable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Transaction eXchange

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

Article about what I assume is a proprietary implementation of XML. I am not able to find reliable sources that establish this to be a notable subject per WP:GNG. - Mr X 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not able to turn up anything either. Maybe this project is at a very early stage and could become notable later. That said, I see notihing to show that the world is crying out for yet another EDI format or that this is the one it would cry for if it did. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice International Models

Does not appear to meet GNG

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

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
21:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete : I can't find any reliable sources. MirandaKeurr (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not even minimally good coverage (my searches found nothing good). SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 13 September 2015 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant of Thieves

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

No evidence that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The two references are blog posts of no note. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, just typical brand publicity, and a few very brief namedrops ([27][28]) that don't support a finding of notability. Note that this was previously created and then deleted by prod on 2 May 2015. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP . I see that you may have only noticed the two sources as blog posts since they are from smaller sites. However, the Bombfell article is an interview with the founders of the company and Bombfell itself is quite a large company within the Fashion space, with a large user base. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Notability can be established through at least one source in regional, national, or international media. Bombfell and Emploom can both be considered as international media. Please look into both those companies, and you will notice that there is Notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with the subject, in which they're talking about themselves, do not demonstrate notability. They can be used for additional sourcing of facts after notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot be the notability in and of themselves. And media, for our purposes, is newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio — not most blogs. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the limited sourcing here is adequate to support a company's notability under WP:ORG, and per Arxiloxos there's not enough better sourcing out there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if things change, but right now this is at best a WP:TOOSOON case. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~'"Keep"'.~~ There are additional sources that have been added that should be taken into account. Sourcing is of international reputation and with previous sources should support notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while you're allowed to comment as many times as you'd like in an AFD discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once. Please do not preface any further comments with "keep", as it may be perceived as an attempt to distort the discussion. And for the record, you haven't actually added any new sources of any discernible "international reputation" since the first time I looked at the article — you've added one new source and it's still a blurb on a blog. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 13 September 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant Park

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable and my searches found nothing to suggest meaningful improvement, here, here, here and here, and mostly results that seem based from this including the first Books result which is a mirror. This has existed since September 2006 and has hardly gotten worthwhile improvement and there's probably no signs of improvement happening. Pinging the only seemingly interested user Mr. Stradivarius. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY - no reliable sources/independent, in-depth coverage in sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage from secondary sources. [29][30] However Re-write due to WP:COPYVIO of the first source which is currently copied verbatim. --Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found two good books talking up the club in just two pages of google hits. Added basic templates and the books to the page - being neglected isn't a good reason for deletion. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 22 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stockato

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

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Creator of the article appears to be the owner/founder of the company. May be a valid speedy deletion. Jujutacular (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jujutacular - there is nothing wrong if a creator of an article is an owner/founder of the company being covered, as it is just a technical matter. If I let an independent entity say a friend or a family member to update Stockato, would it be OK? According to the Wikipedia guidelines probably yes. What matters is not who updates a certain content, but what public references to the topic exist. In regards with Stockato there are references at the USPTO, Tradestreaming. and The Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Best, Uri K.

Further, look closely at the editing history - multiple editors edited Stockato over the past several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartoun (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some browser links and simply looking at the article shows the low amount of third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Road, Inc.

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

No reliable sources for notability, plus promotional writing. Two minor notices in trade journals , about its acquisition of another non-notable firm. Article in a city bizjournal, which are notorious for reprinting any press release they get sent. As for promotionalism "Amber Road evokes images of trade throughout history and more accurately embodies the nature of the company's business" extensive use of the word "solutions", no no experienced npov editor here ever uses. Unnecessary adjectives of importance .Not worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the topic in detail (or even at all, in most cases) as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. WP is not for WP:ADVERTISING. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing useful aside from minor and unusable links at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Creek Designs

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability of this company. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom: no sources out there. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches simply found nothing good and this has actually existed since May 2005 after being started by an IP with hardly much significant change since then. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rampow technology

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

Non-notable product without independent sources. – Gilliam (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:52, 10 September 2015 (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/2015 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's hardly much info and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Stick

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

Non-notable brand name ï¿½ (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since an article for the parent company PQI Group does not exist, there is no way this would meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 12 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BE FORWARD

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

Apart from being written in a promotional tone, two of the three sources cited are primary (one paid advertising). Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promo puff piece. Kierzek (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better to suggest better improvement other than these News links. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 19 September 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ad servers

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

PROD deleted by anonymous user. This is essentially an indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge magnet for spammers and SEO practitioners. Slashme (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Comparison of [topic]" articles are allowed at Wikipedia. See here, here, and here for 3 that I found fairly quickly. Other than the gawd-awful layout of the article being discussed possibly causing blindless (I jest), what is the reason this page should be deleted and the others kept?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015‎

This is basically an other stuff exists argument, but to answer your question, there are a few differences. Filesystems and archive formats don't pop into and out of existence all the time like ad servers; their features are more clearly defined; the page is a morass of external links to commercial services; and sorting out the notability of each individual server would be a heraclean task. --Slashme (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a mess of SEO links and irrelevant ad servers, but I suggest that we leave this entry because it's one of the more useful entries in the ad-server category. Many of the ad servers presented are notable enough to have their own entry here on wikipedia, and I'm sure that all spammy SEO links can be removed from this page. I think it would make sense to remove all external links (other than references), and limit the page to only using internal wikipedia links instead. I am currently working on adding more information on ad servers to wikipedia, and I can volunteer to clean up this page. YeonJKim (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2015 (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. Article obviously needs a lot of TLC. Each participant basically comes up with a different solution, so closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against a possible redirect (after appropriate discussion on the article's talk page) or possible relisting if no improvement is forthcoming in the next few months. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health in Tanzania

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

This appears to be a paper of some sort, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I think the topic is notable, but with the way it is presented in the article, it might be easier to just start over. My earlier PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Occupational safety and health? Remove all of the general content (e.g., all of the Introduction, "every individual worker needs good working environment that is safe and free from any kind of life - threatening hazards") and tighten the language and it should reasonably fit. It has relevant content to expand the other page's worldwide perspective and avoid losing the good stuff entirely. (I could probably take a pass at this but not until the weekend earliest.) Alaynestone (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly some merge to Healthcare in Tanzania. As it is, this reads like a paper or essay (WP:OR). Sandstein 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite; it's a valid topic and potentially an interesting article. The genesis of that article is here, it just needs a fair bit of polish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 30 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brown & Crouppen

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

Not enough sources to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for law firms. They sound like they do good work for tort victims, but I've never heard of any of their lawyers, and none of them have had major leadership positions in the Bar Association of Metro. St. Louis. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches at Books, News and browser found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 12 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backbase

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

I came across this via another user that pointed out that the article is entirely sourced by press releases. I would have PRODed this, but it went through one already.

Long story short, a search for sources didn't really bring up anything other than more press releases and things that look suspiciously like press releases. I found one or two sources like this one and some brief sources like this one, but nothing that would really show that this company would fully pass notability guidelines. If anyone can work some magic on this and find better sources, I'm open to this closing as a keep, but it looks like this company has really only ever been covered in press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing more than...you guessed it! Press releases and other minor mentions such as one at Books and a few with News. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 11 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santera Tequila

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

Advertisement for a beverage, which doesn't show any indication of notability. Searches on the engines only returned a couple of minor mentions on News. Can't find any in-depth coverage which shows this brand is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some industry and press-release stuff but no decent coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: entry has been updated with further online news articles and coverage. Further additions have been made to entry clearing WP:RS. Product is available for purchase and sale, clears WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Coreykam (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The two additional citations don't meet the threshold of notability. The first is from Liquor.com, which isn't a reliable source, since it exists solely to promote alcoholic products. The second is a dead link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Good catch. Article has been updated with notes. Liquor.com has been taken out of sources and the second link is now active. Additional links and information have also been added.38.99.10.106 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than some sponsorships and unfamiliar links. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article fails to state a basis for notability. Editor Vrac is correct, there is some coverage, but not what one would call significant. Editor Coreykam's good faith attempt to add more really didn't. "Lifetailored" and "Headlines and Heroes" are interesting magazine/promotional websites but add little, the same with "Good Spirits News" published on wordpress. None of them would be considered reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Basics

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

Non notable 3-year-old small company. Sources are rehashed press releases, minor mentions. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:Mistersun is suspected of being an undisclosed paid editor sock. GreenC 16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there simply appears to be no better solid coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 28 September 2015 (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. Considering that two of the "keep" opinions are qualified as "weak", and that a third does not address the sourcing situation, I think we can find a narrow consensus to delete. But this can probably be restored if rewritten to appear less promotional and using better sources. Sandstein 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zalora

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

Alleged to be non-notable, and appears to be written like an advertisement. Was previously csd-deleted in 2012, listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(uninitiated in fashion) Keep Article is currently in a large majority just an excessively detailed chronicle of the company's development/expansion history. Not really promotional, but mor of general WP:IINFO. Better sources appear to exist, to hopefully inspire more depth from editors with expertise in fashion/eCommerce. Example source I feel useful: [31][32][33][34] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the article definitely needs cleanup to remove advertising material, the topic meets WP:GNG. WP:TNTing the article may be appropriate. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now as News found some of the news links and although this could be better, I suppose it's acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks terrible at the moment, and it may need to be reduced down to something like only two sentences. However, the organization has picked up the kind of reliable source coverage that makes it seem at least partly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic promotional article, with promotional language. And sources that talk only about initial funding are unreliable for notability, because they are essentially mere notices. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm sympathetic to DGG's concerns, and the article could use some improvement, I think the English language sources alone show the company's notability: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. I think it's safe to assume that there are plenty of non-English sources available too. Sam Walton (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For goodness sake! This is a three-year-old start-up which "hopes one day to be a billion dollar business" but isn't now. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? With the exception of the article from... er... Popspoken which is primarily about one of the brands this company is marketing (not the company), they are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. That goes for CNBC and Elle as well. TechCrunch is a particular offender in puffing start-ups and their CEOs via multiple PR pieces masquerading as articles. I would never regard a write-up in TechCrunch as mark of notability. Ditto VentureBeat. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO advert, article based on press releases and routine announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. None of the references cited in the article or offered in this AfD meet the requirements of WP:RS; they are all routine listings of funding rounds, rehashed press releases, interviews, etc. FWIW, I also note that the primary author of the article is a WP:SPA -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH per Kraxler. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement - clearly a notable topic, and a fixable article in my opinion. --Slashme (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional gunk. I actually went into this with an open mind, leaning keep, but found bupkiss counting towards fulfillment of GNG in a Google search. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iomart Group

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

Declined PROD, concern was: "not a directory, article written by paid contributor". I cannot confirm this was written by a paid contributor and there is some valid info there. May not be enough to constitute an article though. Jujutacular (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I can see that there are significant reasons to be concerned about the process by which this article was created. It appears to have been recreated several times. Iomart was speedily deleted in January 2007, October 2007 and March 2014. Iomart group plc was speedily deleted in June 2014 only for another article with slight variation on the name to be created a month later. I have haven't had any previous involvement with these articles but have tidied up the latest incarnation of article a bit. The article could still do with some further work, but I think progress has been made. The article does include some coverage by reliable, independent sources, so could be seen as demonstrating notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough on searches to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 28 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National U.S.–Arab Chamber of Commerce

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable as my searches found results here, here, here and here but I'm not seeing much convincingly good. Pinging the only still active user DGG (who removed the PROD). SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see any significant notability here, or for the other related groups in other countries. A trade organization ofthe sort that will attract no coverage besides press releases and notice. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 21 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baci Recordings

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

Promotional, unsourced article about a non-notable record label. MER-C 07:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No more discussion seems to be forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CaratLane

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Kiranbramakrishna , with no rationale (through he did leave a response on my talk (User_talk:Piotrus#Proposed_Article_for_Deletion_-_CaratLane)). Unfortunately, I do not consider the sources sufficient. The Hindu short article is half-quoted from the company's CEO statement, and the other half-reads like a PR release - no surprise, as it paraphrases him. Business Standard article just has one para about the company - it simply notes that four companies, including this one, collected some amount of funds. Nothing special, regular coverage not sufficient to make the company encyclopedic. Half of the sources, anyway, focus on the same event ("Caratlane raises $31M in Series D round from Tiger Global") and seem to be rehashes of the same original press release. As for VCCircle, I don't really see how it qualifies as a reliable source; it seems to me more like a PR-outlet. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being promotional is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Sources found: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please follow WP:BEFORE and actually look for sources first. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: Let's see. The Hindu article #1 is 90 words, 575 characters long, and seems like a reprint of a press release: "The Chennai-based startup founded in 2008, offers... The firm expects to end financial year 2015 with revenue." The second article is longer, but not better: "...will soon introduce patented ‘Magic Mirror’, which help a customer view...", most of the content is based on quotes: "Mithun Sacheti, Co-founder and CEO CaratLane, said...", "...said Calvin John, Vice-President-Offline marketing.", "Mr. Sacheti said that...". Sorry, those are a total fail in light of the requirement for independent coverage. Next you cite start-up news (ugh, I am growing to hate those) from Business Standard : "Carat lane raises $31 million". As I noted above, so what? This is business as usual, start-ups raise money from investors. It's not a source for establishing notability, just like a company doing an IPO, or its stocks going up or down, are trivial facts. Fourth is The Financial Express interview with one of the company directors. I guess it is acceptable, through I would like to ping User:DGG for another opinion here, I haven't thought about such interviews as sources much before and I'd be curious to hear his opinion. Do note, either way, that a single potentially reliable source is not sufficient for NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has acheived Wall Street Journal and Financial Times level coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, care to share the links for coverage of this company in those sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If at all weak keep for now as although I haven't closely≥ looked at all the sources, I suppose it's minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: I did and I am not impressed, see my post above. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete waiting to see those WSJ and FT links. But experience seems to be that even newspapers like The Hindu or Times of India seem to think it appropriate to reprint press releases. Doesn't mean we have to copy their bad practices. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see about 7 pages about it in this Random House book before running into preview restrictions: [40]; part of a chapter devoted to it. There's also an article about Indian online jewelry e-commerce in The Economist [41] that focuses on this one. Three paragraphs in the The Telegraph (Calcutta) [42]. Put together with the existing sources, I think it meets GNG. Novickas (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC) P.S., as mentioned below, it was covered by Forbes India during March 2015 - four paragraphs. [43] Novickas (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Keep I see what you mean. I just believe that a company that has been covered by known newspapers such as Economic Times, Telegraph, Times of India, The Hindu, Financial Express etc (All leading newspaper dailies here) and many others is different from the rest. Maybe not enough? Then, to be recognised as the best e-commerce website from millions of sites in India – by an independent association, or to be recognised as one of the 20 hottest start-up by popular brands such as Dataquest, Sapient etc. Forbes India has included them a list of 10 sharply focused e-commerce players, without interpreting what that means – they’re being recognised is what I am saying. Then there are other bits – raising money from Tiger Global (it's not just an average round of fund-raising when they step in), their user base is growing.

All the above data put together I believe there are enough reasons for them to have their page, as they’re not just another company – but one of the biggest online diamond retailers here. I believe that this is a case for cleanup rather than an outright deletion. Thanks for hearing me out ([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|Kiranbramakrishna]]&#124[[User talk:Kiranbramakrishna|t]] )([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|COI]]) (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC) kiranbramakrishna[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joys Sebastian

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

My searches found no good results with this and this (I'm not sure if this last one is actually him) and the current sourcing is not the best; the article also claims he was a pioneer but unless someone can actually improve this troubled article, I'm not seeing much and it hasn't improved much since starting in February 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London television productions

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

My searches simply found nothing although the generic name is no help and it seems their website is closed so they may not be active anymore (archived website here) and even their social media hasn't been updated since February 2011. As an orphan, I'm also not seeing any signs of mentioning this elsewhere thus no alternative to deletion. Pinging past taggers FoCuSandLeArN and 5 albert square. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding coverage either, even putting a search focus on the then-forthcoming programme that was highlighted on the Wayback version of their former website. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 21 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested business brokers

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

Subject fails on WP:ORG. Article is unsourced. Not enough coverage in reliable sources either. Being tagged for notability concerns since June 2012. Hitro talk 21:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like an easy case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Alaynestone (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. I agree with editor CoffeeWithMarkets, this looks like an easy case. But nonetheless it was relisted. Oh well, it is not like I had a train to catch. Gee, they have their own website, and directory listings, and you can view client testimonials on YouTube! It does have an importance claim (See A7), if you believe the staff-written bio of Ms. Goldstein at the NY Senate website: The company is the largest privately held company specializing in the sale of privately held businesses, with over 3,500 listings. With that kind of standing, would one not expect greater coverage? Given the tenor of the complaints listed at US-Complaints.com maybe an investigative business reporter can get a Pulizer. Try WP:SNOW. For the record, the article was created in June 2012‎ by a WP:SPA. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2015 (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 Showtime Networks. Clear consensus to not exist as a stand-alone article. No real agreement on what to do instead, but redirect seems like a reasonable average of the opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Showtime (brand)

AfDs for this article:

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

Purely original research, as most of these companies/services are linked in name only, and their owners are completely unrelated – not a unified "brand" as claimed in the article's title. The Showtime disambiguation page already lists these services adequately. (Relisting due to no participation at last AFD discussion) -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Showtime Networks (plural), the brand owner and licensor, no substanial difference. Someone might want to merge the non-WP:OR content, namely the Bell Media licensing and its citation. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Don't see the need for the redirect, since anyone who would type in the (brand), would already be given the Showtime Networks choice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Showtime Networks, which apparently owns the Showtime brand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (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. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IASON

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

My searches found not much and nothing even good to suggest minimal improvement (here, here and here) thus with the article's less than acceptable state and no signs of improvement, the only hope is there's better coverage from Austria. There's also been basically no significance change since starting in August 2008 after the author moved to from userspace to article space themselves. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (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. – czar 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MISoft Studios

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

My searches simply found no good results at all with the best being a patent at Highbeam thus there's nothing to suggest improvement to this sparsely edited article from December 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability. Refs provided are company pages and blog and forum posts. The justpressplay.net review (and entire site) is offline, but archive.org shows it as a sort of group blog that mostly reviews films. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 September 2015 (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 Withdrawn by nominator (NAC), SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread Research

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

Fails on WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most of the content is written in promotional tone. References are unclear. Tagged for notability since February 2011 without any significant improvement. Hitro talk 19:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. --Edcolins (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Theorist Are you aware of the recent changes? SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep: ~~for now, probably a case of too soon, but not a slam-dunk delete.~~ They are the first French credit rating agency and are being quoted by Bloomberg et al but coverage isn't that significant yet, although I did find this, this, this and this. Vrac (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The article looks pretty good after Edcolins improvements, changing to keep. I suspect this co. will be increasingly influential going forward. Vrac (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have changed my mind. The sources recently found by Vrac (talk · contribs) (thanks!) show a sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources, in my opinion. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG met. --Edcolins (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as I suppose it's more acceptable now. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references in the article support notability. The article could use some work, but I do not see a reason to delete it for that. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal- Vrac and Edcolins have brought significant improvement to this article. In the present scenario, I am withdrawing my nomination and requesting admins to close this debate. Thank you to both users. Hitro talk 19:30, 15 September 2015 (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. --Core desat 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally kept at its prior AfD. DRV overturned this result, but could not reach a strong consensus to delete outright. The matter is resubmitted to AfD. Deletion is on the table, particularly concerning the question of whether the sources offered in the article qualify as reliable and non-trivial. Xoloz 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - I read the previous AfD and noted that some added that economical impact was noteworthy. However, I cannot find it in the article. If there is a reference to the noteworthy economical impact that can be added to this article, I could see keeping it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until I get a chance to review the extranl links of the article, I cannot change my stance to "keep". However, if external links can be referenced within the text more appropriately (albeit not required for this AfD), it would make a lot easier for people to understand what is being annotated. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my comment in the DRV. All of those sources are obviously too local, many of them trivial, like "Sierra Vista Mall will hold a community outreach fair at 10 am", thus not really independent of the topic (anything, even local resturants, apartment buildings, nursing homes, local politicians (which fail WP:BIO btw, supermarkets, etc can have that many local sources). WP:HEY doesn't apply nither as the only thing added was an infobox, and the spam wasn't removed. Jbeach56 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand what you actually mean by too local. Is a newspaper from the same city too local. Is a publication from the City Government to local. How far away must the source be? Please explain what sources your refering to when you say "a community outreach fair at 10 am", because none of thoes have been used in the Article. WP:HEY shouldnt be a factor in any AfD because AfD is not a method for forcing an articles improovement, is it? AfD should be a place for a cross section of WP to guage if a Article Subject could be worth noting, isnt it? In this perticular case, I believe it is. I had thought my first Citations had shown that, but I hope that this new set does. Please, I ask that you reconsider. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources, one of them aren't independent (the school board one) and the last two seems to me like they copied from each other, and the area seems wrong "Sierra Vista Mall - the largest retail complex in Southeastern Arizona". Jbeach ^sup 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mall's whose name did not get any mention in the local press, that would be a notable phenomenon. There has been absolutely no clue whatsoever as to why this mall should have a wikipedia entry. It has to be proven it is notable, not that it is not, and I maintain that this mall could be deleted per A7, "no claim to notability".--victor falk 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but a7 is for things that do not say anything that might indicate notabiity at all, like having major stores, and only if one accept the extension of treating malls as companies) Believe it or not, there are many much sketchier mall articles, suitable for speedy as no meaningful content. DGG (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - citations being to local is not a valid reason to delete, and if it is then you had best be prepared to remove entire categories Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God I despise you people. The only reason this article is hard to expand is that available sources all have to be paid for. Kappa 07:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please be civil. citations have been added, it just took a while to wade throuhg thousands of them finding good ones. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is based on routine coverage and asserts nothing that is out of the ordinary. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership is routine ??? And why does not being extra-ordinary not mean it it no worth noting ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that source doesn't mention this mall, it mentions one in Arizona. Jbeach ^sup 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large regional mall is always important to its community. plenty of coverage in local press. It adds to our scope of encyclopedic coverage. Wikidemo 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything has local coverage in the press, even nursing homes, certain stores, local politicians, etc, Jbeach ^sup 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most businesses aren't covered by an article about them. But at any rate, coverage what notability tested on -- see WP:CORP. There's no exclusion for local papers at WP:CORP. I don't think we should make up a new rule to that effect, but if we do want a new rule the proper place to hash that out is on the notability pages or village pump, not the talk page for deleting a specific shopping mall. For the moment the rule is that notability is established by substantial mentions in reliable secondary sources. We have that here; hence, according to the current guidelines this mall is notable.Wikidemo 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. No nontrivial sources whatsoever have been put forward by the article's proponents. Counting Google hits is not research. Merely looking at Google's summary of a hit - as was clearly done, given that multiple "sources" linked in the article, including the two of those stridently proclaimed by Exit2Dos above, are about a different mall entirely - is, if anything, worse. —Cryptic 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peter Vogel (computer designer). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vogel Instruments

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

Fails notability standard. Most references are dead and the ones that are up are about Fairlight and not Peter Vogel Instruments. I could find nothing on Google or Google News. User who created the account [44] was a Single Purpose Account, quite possible written by someone in the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Peter Vogel (computer designer) as that's what the sources talk about (where they're not talking about the Fairlight CMI). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Vogel as mentioned - I was going to comment earlier but wanted to wait...this seems like the best option until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 24 September 2015 (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. sufficient consensus; no need to relist DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonethics

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

Article of limited interest and notability. I'm putting it up here at AfD as I don't think it passes WP:GNG, and appears to violate WP:PROMOTION. Article's original creator appears to be the subject. Recent edits are about new contracts... New Media Theorist (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best results I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Would you care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 20 September 2015 (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. Unopposed request, may be restored if new sources are found. Sandstein 11:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audiokite Research

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

No evidence of notability. References are mostly promotional or self-published. ubiquity (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found no better coverage with the best results being this and a few passing at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I'd appreciate if you commented so better consensus can achieved. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 23 September 2015 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Group

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

There's hardly any information here and, although a company affiliated with Nepal's king may be notable, this is simply the son-in-law. Also, this company may not exist anymore as it has not been significantly edited since starting in January 2006 and my searches found no recent or significant for that matter coverage, with the best results being this and here. Pinging the only editor that would seem possibly interested Bachrach44. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Sachindra Shrestha might be the only one who would care - s/he created the article in 2006 and that remains the only significant edit. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachrach44 I'm sure but I almost never ping someone who was obviously a SPA account from 2006 so chances are they're never coming back. I pinged you in case you wanted to comment. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence to support notability DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 21 September 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HSH.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no in-depth secondary sources, just a lot of articles quoting HSH.com press releases about mortgage rates, and a few WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview quotes from the vice president. The articles go into no detail about the company itself, such as would be required to source an article describing the company. McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found some results (Books, News and browser), some of the results such as News was simply republishing data and such and not better in-depth coverage about HSH.com itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:35, 9 September 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter

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

Not notable as I understand it, similar to the Melvin Wright discussion, including same authors. Bjornte (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as although my usual searches found some results (News, Books, browser and highbeam), there wasn't anything convincing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything overly promotional with this entry. Well cited and sources point off site to actual articles about the firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but keep to mind there could be better coverage and press releases are usually only used if there is no other solution as PR is simply self-generated content from the company themselves usually promotional and otherwise unusable. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly arcvertising their services, ("Attorneys at the firm accept a wide range of cases, including personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product defect, workers’ compensation, and securities and stockbroker fraud." That's a rather narrow range, when you take a close look at it...), no in-depth coverage anywhere, the sources are all connected to the firm, directories, press releases and a few trivial mentions in news about the cases, fails WP:PROMO and WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2015 (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. Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HWCG LLC

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

Contested PROD, Non notable company where significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All coverage is insignificant or non independent. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to this nomination for deletion, additional citations were added to demonstrate the notability of the organization and related reliable media coverage. The additional citations include articles and news coverage from established industry publications and journals such as Oil & Gas Journal, Offshore Engineer, E&P Magazine and World Oil. In further support of HWCG's notability, the organization has been invited to testify in front of various US Government committees on the progress in offshore safety since Deepwater Horizon (citations with links to this testimony are included in the entry). HWCG has played a major, notable role in the progress of offshore drilling safety in the United States, as reflected in the cited governmental testimony and 10+ other articles cited. --Cdevwrites (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) User:Cdevwrites is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than this and similar with browser. Simply not anything to suggest meaningful better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still keep~~ You can vote only once As a note for anyone trying to search for additional sources/information, the organization was formerly called Helix Well Containment Group in the years immediately following Deepwater Horizon and seems only recently dropped down to HWCG. The linked search results for "hwcg llc company" in the previous comment use too narrow of a search term to get a full picture of coverage, as many recent news mentions just say "HWCG." To get the full sense of notability, it's necessary to evaluate coverage for both Helix Well Containment Group and HWCG together (although Helix Well Containment Group is no longer the organization's correct name). In that sense, you will see the organization has been covered by NPR, National Geographic, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, in addition to the sources already cited in the entry. For example, National Geographic called HWCG's containment system one of the "most hopeful energy developments" of 2011.^[2]. This coverage doesn't appear in the narrower search above, as it uses the organization's old name. Cdevwrites (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.maqar.com/?id=70235
^ "Most Hopeful Energy Developments of 2011". National Geographic. Dec 29, 2011.

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. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Traditional Architects

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and seems to be a Wikipedia:Original research policy violation" It was deprodded by creator, User:Jutrasj with the following rationale "The proposed deletion was removed as it is believed this list is notable due to it receiving significant coverage. Many architects have their own Wikipedia page and this list further connects their individual pages in a convenient manner." I am afraid the list is still not believed to be notable. There are no sources suggesting it is not an OR compilation, and as such, the notable architects on that list, if any, should be simply categorized (through we would first need to define the term current traditional architect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prokonsul Piotrus, Your "reply here" link doesn't seem to work so I'll write my comments here instead. I find the many compiled lists on Wikipedia extremely convenient and useful. I fail to see the difference between the Current Traditional Architects list and all the lists located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists Why would you want to make Wikipedia less convenient and useful? -Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutrasj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutrasj: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to comply with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, lacks criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopedic context. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Bejnar (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I'm not seeing much of an obvious need for this. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 September 2015 (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. Opinions remain divided, so this is kept for a lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netatmo

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by 212.83.148.19 with the following rationale "Added many references to make it match to Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Sadly, I don't see how the new refs help; no refs I see are independent, reliable and providing in-depth coverage. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I've found extensive coverage in at least 4 languages, including reviews of its products in The Guardian, TechCrunch, Wareable, CNET, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FoCuSandLeArN: Would you care to share links to said coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is absurd. I list random sources following: [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; dozens more are available, as well as in print. There are ample references for this stub; heck I don't event know why this is a stub! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @FoCuSandLeArN: Passing mentions do not count: the fact that The Guardian mentions one of the company products in its article about cool gadgets does not mean the company can be said to have been covered by it ([55]). All the other links you have seem to be either passing mentions, or niche outlets, some of them possibly PR "you pay we write" ones. If you disagree, please tell us which of the links you provided are reliable, and why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete for now as I would've expected better results and some of the best results I found was this (that's not much). SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? First of all, your search included the terms "French company"; secondly, the search you've linked includes extensive coverage, such as from Fast Company, The Telegraph, etc. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to FoCuSandLeArN's sources here is some coverage in French press: Le Figaro, Le Monde. Vrac (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vrac: While those are reliable outlets, the Figaro article seems to be a brief review of one of their products (a camera) and the fact it got some awards. Le Monde links are mostly passing coverage, through [56] seems to be a more in-depth, and so far seems to me the only good source we have. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more at Le Figaro, including this. Then there is L'Express, which I hadn't looked at, with this and others. I'll grant you that not all of the coverage is in-depth, but compared to the things we usually fight over at AFD this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH with flying colors. Vrac (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question about it, Vrac. Piotr merely stating that reviews are paid for without providing evidence for that accusation is no justification for deletion. I'm starting to think he's pushing some agenda here. Note that the reviews are by no means "passing mentions", and sources have without a doubt an editorial process. Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch, a notability claim in a reliable source if there ever was one. What does the nom have against these people? The stub is already bordering on citation overkill and Piotr's request for more references is absurd. Sources abound and were politely presented (an onus on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE), now kindly desist with the deletion crusade. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accuse me of being on a crusade and having a hidden agenda, I'll ping an experienced editor and mediator, whom I'll ask to review both this article and my (and yours) arguments here: User:DGG. I'll add to my prior arguments that the Figaro entry seems to be your average run of the mill "start up gets financing" type of a news piece. [57] seems more promising, and seems the 2nd good source presented here, through I'd appreciate a review by a more neutral French-speaker (who can distinguish between a reworded press release and proper journalism). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Those guidelines are rather specific about what constitutes significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Netatmo has not received that kind of coverage. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. Having award winning products is certainly a start for gaining the kind of coverage the guidelines require, but by itself does not make the company notable. --Bejnar (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The awards may not be important enough for implying that the company notable notability. As far as I can tell from the references, the CES gives multiple awards for every product judged to above a certain standard, with one product being rated "best" in each the category. There is nothing here reliable enough to show that these products were actually so rated as "best", or merely honored. The CES website is insufficiently explicit. I'm not an expert in this, but it certainly isn't obvious.

The CNET review is in my opinion the best of the references; though fairly brief, I do know they have reasonably high standards. . I cannot distinguish in this field for the articles in Figaro and LeMonde the difference between PR-instigated articles and and true coverage. Certainly, it is my impression that giving such full articles to what after all are quite minor peripheral products, that PR placement is the more important. But I would have to judge it not by the language used only, but by their habitual standards. And I do not know this. But I could quite as likely have come to the opposite conclusion; in fact, I wrote this out both ways! In the end, I'm going by the impression that it is not likely that a firm limiting itself to such products is really very important. There's a place for common sense, even in WP.

This shows the absurdity of our judging things like this by WP:GNG. The world is actually such that it is impossible for us in many cases to judge the difference between journalism and advertising, and this unfortunate fact makes a mockery out of our standards. It's time we went by the RW, not the media business, which I do not trust to be honest for topics such as this.

Incidentally, The pseudo-guideline INHERITORG has it exactly backwards. A product is not notable because it is produced by a notable company, because not everything even the most important company makes is important; but a company making notable products can not do so without being itself important. Inheritance, both in the RW as well as WP, ordinarily goes downwards, not upwards. A company becomes notable by its accomplishments--which for the ordinary business concern, are its products. Normally, it's easy to see the difference--most notable companies make several notable products. If in doubt whether we need a separate article on each, we go with the larger topic: the company, with sections for the products. When there is a company with only one important product, it can be a doubtful, because the product may indeed sometimes be much conspicuous than the company, and should be the topic of the article. In this case, there are multiple products of equal importance, so if they have each won a major award --for which there is insufficient evidence-- the article would be on the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this situation is more a commentary on the absurdity of AFD than the absurdity of GNG. The company has gotten significant coverage in the French press because its products are interesting. Le Monde and Le Figaro are the top two reliable sources for France and L'Express is not far behind. Le Monde is one of the best reliable sources this planet has to offer. We cover what reliable sources cover so GNG is amply satisfied. If the equivalent coverage were to be found in the equivalent UK or US sources this AFD would have been a snow keep.

AFD outcomes depend on who shows up; and in this case who shows up with how much linguistic knowledge, how much knowledge of the sources in question; and, frankly, with what agenda. The nominator has referenced a Signpost op-ed they wrote about promotion in Wikipedia; dare I say they may feel that they can't back down on this delete because of that. When I compare this to some of the other corporate crap I've seen kept at AFD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group, the WP:ABSURDITY of the situation is demoralizing. Vrac (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch. Those are two prime examples of the state of AfD. AfC is quite similar in that regard...depending on who's available at any given time. That's the problem with running a quasi-collaborative endeavour. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:47, 19 September 2015 (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. Sandstein 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Banks

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AusLondonder with the following rationale "definitely not suitable for prod, seems to meet notability requirements". Well, please explain how he meets that. I don't see much coverage; appearing in one TV show does not seem to cut it, not unless it would generate coverage itself, which I do not see. All other sources seem to mention him in passing, or are not independent/reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE (not a valid argument). You have to explain how it does that. I say it does not, and I did explain myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While this businessperson is a bit notable, it looks like he's pretty much known just for his association with more notable things-- such as the TV show in which he appeared-- rather than for his own actions. In the spirit of the general Wikipedia guidelines on notability, I feel like this article probably should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. On the basis of him being one of the regular panel on Shark Tank (Australian TV series). Although the article is so filled with puffery that it might be better to TNT it and start over. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andreas Philopater: And being a said regular makes him notable because it is supported by which of our policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has a recurring role on national TV in a show that garners repeated media commentary.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andreas Philopater: Ah, in that case we are good, just please link to said repeated media commentary on him (if it is on the show it does not count - notability is not inheritable by association). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: I think that's where the "before" part of the deletion process comes in: you should have done that yourself already.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Andreas Philopater: Nope, you fail to understand this project policies. I looked, I found nothing worthwhile. Now you have to provide links to save this spam, then we will discuss their quality. Saying that they exist and not bothering to link them is not a valid or helpful argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus: I think you should have a read of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you think I have to do anything at all. You put this article up for discussion and I foolishly assumed that meant you wanted people's opinions. I Googled the man's name in combination with "Shark" (otherwise you get lots of irrelevant hits to wade through), and I saw coverage of him specifically, in his capacity as "Shark" (or using that to identify him to readers), in the Sydney Morning Herald and other major news publications. It was enough for me to offer a (weak) "keep" opinion, but I don't care enough about the outcome to want to do it a second time just so you don't have to. What worries me a good deal more is your gladiatorial and rather pestering pinging of me for proffering an opinion that you don't share. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry I am wasting your time asking for your opinion, I will not ping you anymore per your request. Since you couldn't be bothered linking the article you found, I had to spend my time recreating your search. I did find [58], which discusses him for several paragraphs in the Private Syndey celebrity column. While it is a reliable source, it is the first one we found, and we do require multiple (2+) reliable, in-depth sources. Also, there's the WP:ONEEVENT problem, suggesting that he is better of being mentioned on the show's page then in a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep as although sourcing could be better, this seems notable and like any of the American "sharks" of Shark Tank. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 23 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IncentiveWorks

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

Brief stub about a convention with no strong evidence of passing WP:EVENT; the article, as written, just asserts that the thing exists and parks it on two primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found results here, here, here and here and the Highbeam link say it's "Canada's leading trade show for the meetings and incentives industry" but, in that case, I would've expected better coverage thus there's not much to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The largest trade show for so specialized an industry would not be expected to generate much press, and it seems that it hasn't done so. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVS (Commercial Valuers & Surveyors)

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

Non-notable property surveying firm - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) @ 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar - Promotional shite that belongs anywhere but here!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable business; free promo advert. Quis separabit? 17:38, 18 September 2015 (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 Gross domestic product#Determining GDP. Nobody wants to keep this separate as of now. Can be spun out later again via WP:SS. If there are concerns about the redirect, consider WP:RFD. Sandstein 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring GDP

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

This article is a mess, to put it lightly. It reads vaguely like my college notes from freshman year. This content is covered in a much more comprehensive and encyclopedic manner at GDP#Determining GDP. Since the components of GDP and the methods of calculation are crucial to understanding the concept, this is not a good candidate for a split. ~ Rob^Talk 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Gross domestic product#Determining GDP Duplicates Gross domestic product per nom, and WP:NOTGUIDE anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm weakly opposed to a redirect. There has been at least weak consensus that WP:NOTGUIDE applies to redirects in the past. I would consider that redirect to suggest that the reader will find guide-like content on the target page, which they will not. Also, GDP does not contain any discussion of the processes used to actually measure GDP as this redirect would suggest (i.e. what the various governmental agencies do to collect data). It only discusses calculating the value if you already know the values of components. Pinging Hisashiyarouin in case they care to comment on this. ~ Rob^Talk 03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gross domestic product#Determining GDP Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect, but some strong concern has been raised against such an outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure because it's not bad as a guide, but there are essentially no citations. If kept, it needs to be trimmed extensively. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JProfiler

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

Can find no reliable sources on this topic. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as I'm compelled to say delete because although my searches found results (here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if it's enough to swing improvement and I think this could be mentioned elsewhere but there's no target as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of the, "2007 Java Developer's Journal Readers' Choice Awards". [59] [60] The software is also recommended in dozens of programming books.[61] It appears that they have a free version for personal and a paid version for commercial use. 009o9 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the hope this scatershot AFD can actually go somewhere. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a java developer there is very little reason to keep this page there is nothing of worth on this page that you would not see from attempting to use it inside of eclipse. I understand that it is a good tool but it is a bit simple. Its like writing an article about a specific brand of pulley system. There will never be a reason to write about the branded item but about the system itself. We have an article on Software profiling. I don't see why this is notable beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrdema (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XE Mobile

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

My searches simply found nothing good (with the best solid mentions I found here) and it is not surprising as it only seemed to have lasted about a year. At best, if others agree, this can mentioned at a related article such as AT&T. Pinging past editors Mrzaius and Strunke. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the genericness of "XE Mobile" is causing problems, with searches providing results such as HTC Sensation XE and XE.com mobile apps. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing available to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner Publications

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is self-published. ubiquity (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you've would've at least expected better coverage but there's isn't any but this isn't actually entirely surprising as publishers publish but coverage about them isn't always. My searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence found of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Note there appears to be an identically named company from Texas that advertised in Popular Science magazine, but that doesn't affect the lack of notability for this Southern California company. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alien

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

Non-notable company. Of the six references listed, the one from Journalism.co.uk is a press release and the second is a routine notice of a branch office opening, so probably not admissible under WP:ORGDEPTH. The third source, from Cambridge Network, is not independent because Red Alien is one of their members [62]. The remaining sources are brief mentions. Article author has been blocked for being an Orangemoody sock. Altamel (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the references provided fall short of the corporate notability threshold. That aside, it's my personal belief that any Orangemoody-created article that has not been significantly edited by unrelated editors should be presumptively deleted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothin' better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to pass WP:CORP, namely lack of in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2015 (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. Minimal debate even after two relists, so calling this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Bazzi

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

Apparently non-notable glass manufacturer, does not meet GNG or any other criterion. Note: the article previously contained more material, some of it unsourced, some of it entirely spurious, which I have removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I discuss in such pages, so I apologize for any mistake I will commit; in it.wiki italian painters notability is my main occupation, so I hope I can help. The article is totally wrong, not only because there's no content and only bibliography, but also because the bibliography itself it's wrong:

Carlo Pirovano, La Pittura in Italia: Il Novecento, Vol. 2;
Raffaele De Grada, Il Novocento a Palazzo Isimbardi;
Paola Slavich, Ospedale maggiore/Cà granda: Ritratti moderni

Noone of these three books really talks about Carlo Bazzi (except for three insignificant quotes as "friend of", "pupil of"), so it's very misleading to consider them "further readings".

I was trying to know if it was possible to write this article in it.wiki, but the only notable thing I found on my books is that six Bazzi's paintings are owned by Banca Commerciale Italiana, which owns a good collection of art (source: this book, p. 193). I don't know how notable you can consider this thing here in en.wiki, but Carlo Bazzi in it.wiki probably would be considered very borderline. Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 17:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this individual only picked up a small amount of notability with his work, and I feel like in the spirit of the rules (beyond just the mere words) this should probably be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2015 (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 and redirect to Henry Odein Ajumogobia. Redirects are cheap. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajumogobia & Okeke

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

A non-notable law firm that fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization appears to be only somewhat notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my first searches at News and Books found some results, there's nothing to suggest meaningful better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henry Odein Ajumogobia, the prinicple partner, for lack of significant coverage, and failure of the article to make a claim of notability. Undoubtedly it is a pretigious law firm in Nigeria, it just lacks coverage. I found two in depth articles about Ajumogobia that mention the firm in passing, the rest were just directory and incidental listings. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (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. Per the sources found. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hemp Trading Company

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

My searches found nothing outstandingly good with this and this being the best results and, although the article has a few sources it could certainly be better. The time it has been here is likely not worth waiting longer for improvement and is probably best deleted (please feel free to draft & userfy). SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found two compelling sources in Google Books. Even though this is essentially a plug, it is from an unconnected third party, describes the brand's output, namechecks a few customers, and confirms it is a recognised and well-respected organic clothing brand. MUCH more compellingly, I found this book by Sandy Black. Google Search gives a taster of what Black has written about the company on page 62: "ALMOST BY accident, London company The Hemp Trading Company (THTC) started producing t-shirts made from knitted, a hundred per cent hemp, fabric. Founder Dru Lawson had been looking for a way to combine his environmental and...."

To place this in context: Sandy Black is an established academic and expert on dress and textiles, who has been doing this for a long time. Although we can't see all that she says, I trust her opinion if she thinks it is notable, as she is someone who knows her field. Mabalu (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment - I've pieced together some of the Black text from Google searches, enough to tell it contains quite substantial coverage of the firm. Also, there are six page hits for "THTC" in the same book although Google Search is only showing text from one page. I also found the following additional sources:

1 - nice info on the earliest origins of the company.
I found a web-archive of the New Consumer dead link cited in the article, and it's a nice piece.
Brief but nice piece from The Guardian, 2005. Another Guardian article here - despite being headlined as an "advertisement feature" for E.ON, it does hold a journalistic commentary on various brands and companies.
Coverage in The Ecologist - an interview, but snippet views indicate there is some third party commentary too. The Ecologist is a RS. Further investigation of the Ecologist online magazine pulls up [63] (reads a bit press-releasey, but I think the publication's choice to include it is worth noting).
Not really such perfect sources, but still nice: an interview on a respectec hip-hop news site [64]; an article (a blog post really, but still nicely written and part of an online magazine site which does appear to be trying to maintain standards) here; and another interview, albeit with substantial commentary from the interviewer in the beginning. Mabalu (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources now found above. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemberga brunn

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

Granted it's a foreign company and from the past century so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches found nothing therefore unless good sources are found, there's not much here. Notifying author Liftarn. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the company's own site at http://www.hembergabrunn.se/ but that is not enough. Some other info can be found at http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/hemberga-brunn-brunnen-bryggeri/20472/ and http://www.allabolag.se/what/Hemberga_Brunn and http://www.orebroguiden.com/arkiv/68706 // Liftarn (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. I added a few references but the two of them are press releases and two of them simply confirms that the company was named after a local mineral spa. I can't really find anything else besides directory listings. I'd be willing to change my !vote if somebody can come up with something better. You should think that a company almost 70 years old has had something written about them. Maybe it's another case of sources not being digitized yet. Does someone have Atext or similar access? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136761_nyupptackt_radiumkalla_1.pdf that is a 1926 article about Hemberga Brunn. It appears it was started after they discovered that the water was radioactive. Perhaps not something they want to stress today, but the brochure at http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136760_hemberga_brunn.pdf does. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two of the sources I added also mentioned the radioactivity of the spring. Those things appear to have been popular in the first part of the 20th Century. The two sources you list here would be useful for an Hemberga Spring article, but they do not say anything about the company I'm afraid. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability in the article, a run-of-the-mill beverage distributor, web search turns up press releases, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asbury Plaza

AfDs for this article:

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

This strip mall was brought to AFD in 2007 and closed as no consensus. No sources were presented and arguments were simply wp:ILIKEIT. I can't find any source fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hard to say why this is exactly, but "power centers" don't get an much press attention as enclosed shopping malls do. There seems to be something about an enclosed mall which gives it a more defined culture and generates more writing about it, far more so than an equally large retail area consisting of a massive parking lot surrounded by big box stores. One can meet the love of their life in a mall food court, or dream of this occurring, far more so than in front of the Best Buy in the rain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister - nothing to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 20 September 2015 (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. Of note is that this BBC article provides what could be considered as significant coverage, but on Wikipedia, topic notability requires qualification with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (more than one source). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winjit

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

non notable. The reference pretended to be an article in The Hindu is marked on their site as a press release. The siliconindia article isn;'t marked, but that's what it is also. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It's worth noting this article was actually deleted in 2008 by Jimfbleak as G11 and my searches find nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability with results such as this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meets WP:ORG nor it have significant coverage. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Stencil Recordings

I have updated this entry with reviews from National and International press to address concerns about "evidence of any significant notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exitbrandon1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

References are very local. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable business enterprise; possible promo. Quis separabit? 00:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to comment earlier and I think I never came again because I hadn't noticed it again...my searches found nothing better than passing mentions at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 21 September 2015 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero's Books (store)

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

This sounds interesting and seems to be somewhat well known locally but my searches found no outstandingly good sources (searches here, here, here and here) and their best coverage may have been the 2007 book burning. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book burning actually got a lot of coverage. Local radio coverage from last year [65], Local News coverage (not related to book burning) from this year [66]. It meets at least WP:CORPDEPTH for such a small company since. WP:AUD is the real decision here, it has had national/international coverage in addition to continued regional coverage, but the most substantional national coverage is for one event. WP:LOCAL is pretty convincing to make a keep for locally known places that have had at least one nationally known notable thing. It also pops up on tons of travel/tourist stuff for KC, which isn't an official criteria might make people wonder why it's listed so they might look it up here. I think that since it's written pretty neutrally it should probably be kept. If it was promotional I'd probably be biased against it.--Savonneux (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shouldn't we be looking at WP:EVENT for this one, ie. " Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance.", so if the coverage of the bookburning is discounted will there be enough to warrant an article? The "local news item" above does talk of the bookburning (probably why they decided to cover this news item) and talks about an urban library which may be a slight variation on the Little Free Library that individuals, groups and businesses have been setting up all over the world; prospero also happens to have set one up, hardly notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Coolabahapple's comment. Nothing to show notability outside this one locally notable event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 21 September 2015 (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. Not much participation here, even after two relists. Let's call this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulacom Jordan

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

Although somewhat new, I'm finding sources saying it's a leading telecommunications company but, also, my searches found no outstandingly good results and instead here, here, here, here and here. Even if it's acceptably locally notable, the current state is not entirely acceptable. Notifying the only still active tagger Stuartyeates. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: any arabic-speaking editors who could supply the company's arabic name for searching? Most sources are likely to be in arabic. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - let this one go in the hopes of someone who knows Arabic getting involved. Based on that lack of involvement, and with the current searches, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video Art Holland

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

unsourced advertising The Banner talk 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Toffanin (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T U D

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

Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been moved to TUD (company) by another user. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With the company's name it's hard to find sources, but even a search for "TUD Malaysia" failed to find anything relevant other than basic company information or websites mentioning/selling their products. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AM Law Firm

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I do not find that the references are sufficient for this firm to pass WP:CORP. Additionally, the article feels as if it is the firm's web site and is a brochure, not an article about them. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that the article does not meet the terms of WP:CORP . It has enough references and in my opinion this firm is notable as it has a strong coverage as in Local media so in international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria step (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Maria step (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Maria step appears to have a WP:COI, potentially as a senior staff member of the organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful article. I found interesting cases here like burberry against jazzve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 September 2015‎ — Eduard Melikyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete as spam. We are not a web host for new law firms. In particular, this stub fails every one of my standards for notability of attorneys and law firms. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a bit too promotional in tone and quality. If it's indeed the coverage of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject itself, then could be target for quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2015 (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. Sandstein 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grama Vidiyal

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating again for clearer consensus as I'm still unsure of its solid notability with my own searches finding nothing particlarly outstanding here, here, here, here and here. Pinging the most still active users @DGG, Molly-in-md, Richhoncho, and Kafka Liz: for comments (unfortunately almost all other editors not active or as active anymore or else I would've pinged them). SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it is the larges microfinance organization in India, it's notable. But it would require updating and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still not seeing much that establishes real notability, and the writing is atrocious. *If* the article is kept, it needs some serious work. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and get input from Wikipedians with more relevant local knowledge (for example, Wikiproject India). I hesitate to delete articles about which I know very little, from a country that speaks English but is on the other side of the planet. — Molly-in-md (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kibow Biotech

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable to Wiki standards and as my searches found nothing good here, here, here, here and here until I found Scholar results here. However, as I'm not familiar with this field, I hope a consensus can be made for this sparsely edited article from July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability, and considerable promotional content. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biotech company of unclear notability. The refs provided cover papers by authors associated with the company and are not independent. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2015 (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. – czar 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Familia Records

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

A search for reliable sources independent of the subject came up short, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple of passing mentions in the L.A. Times: [67][68], a possible hit in URB (but only an unhelpful snippet is visible) [69], and a mention in a Duke University Press book: [70]. GBooks and GScholar also turned up a few more books that mention this label in discographies of the genre. It's possible that that the label is worthy of note in some context (maybe in an appropriate article about the genre) but in terms of supporting its own article, the online sourcing is sketchy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Existing sources were for quotes which, as used, were providing substantial content rather than supporting existing content, thus falling afoul of fair use. After pruning those, the only remaining source, that of the ownership of the company, does not appear to be supported by the source given. Crow^Caw 20:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches turned up nothing to show that this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this is a mere directory advertising entry DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abad Hotels

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

Article about a dime-a-dozen hotel company in India. The draft was declined at AfC multiple times (see creator's talk page, the latest one on 19 May 2015), but the creator then bypassed the process by creating the article directly in article space (on 20 May 2015, the day after it was last declined at AfC). After removing unsourced peacockery and promotion, a gallery, a list of hotels they operate and a totally irrelevant piece about the owner having been named "Businessman of the year" in Kerala, there's nothing left, including not a single reliable source discussing the subject, only the company's own website, the company's own pages on social media and a link that shows that they're members of a tourist association, and thus exist. But merely existing is not reason enough to have an article on Wikipedia.

(The creator of the article has also started spamming links to the company's website all over en-WP, which is how I noticed this article.) Thomas.W ^talk 11:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional spam, should have been taggde db-g11 for a speedy delete. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having it deleted via AfD makes it easier to get it speedied (as G4) the next time if it is recreated, as many promotional articles are. Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 15 September 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathpartner Technology

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

non notable. Interesting wording from the single purpose account who contributed the article : "Pathpartner seems to provide product engineering services", "Pathpartner has been seen working closely with semiconductor companies"-- Isee that as an attempt to pretend to be nonpromotional. Awards are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my first searches instantly found PR and other self-generated content here and at browser. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where can I get the complete list of discussion comments on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymk (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Nasscom EMERGE 50 awards are notable awards given in India and Dun and Bradstreet awards are also reputed and not bought over the counter. I've removed the other line refered in the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymk (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaymk All comments about that will be here and what would help the article is better third-party coverage such as news and magazine. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SwisterTwister. I've added press coverage from engadget, siliconindia and dnaindia - which are credible news sources, with decent readership, links from Xilinx and TI are also credible third-party source I believe. Vinaymk (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't put much faith in the TI and Xilinx links as "sources". They are business partners, so of course the source is going to try to make the company look good. Those "sources" will mean something if you are in the semiconductor business; a general reader will have no idea what they mean. Still lacks notability outside of the very narrow world it inhabits of writing internal code for Integrated Circuits. Now if the New York Times or the Guardian has something to say, that would be different.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconductors is an important field in modern world, dnaindia is a credible online news media in India and engadget means a lot to techies. I want to believe that wikipedia represents everything and everyone in this world Vinaymk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 16 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Soul

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

Does not pass notability. Anything in news releases are just passing by refs. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This firm just doesn't seem that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organisation. -KH-1 (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the best results here. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zazaro TV

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

Unable to find sources why this is significant or important. The web URL provided in the original edit no longer works (another link is zazaro.com, and here it is from several years ago), and there's a Youtube channel, likely not enough. TheGGoose (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another really old article. Anything that has stuck around this long liekly deserves at least one comment. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a licensed TV broadcast station see here, it was approved by the Dutch Media Commission in 2004. But it is doubtful whether they are still on the air. They say that they are a TV and internet channel, but web searches don't turn up any link to their own channel/site. Kraxler (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2015 (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. Swarm ♠ 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd.

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable and my searches found nothing better with the best results here, here and here. There's aso no obviously good move target with the two links being List of companies of Canada and former employee Arun Garg. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful information Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article looks very much like a promotional piece at the moment, but I've found a notable mention in The Globe and Mail [71]-RoseL2P (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete not WP:NOTABLE. This is just directory information and WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, The editor who created it seems to have been a paid freelancer, based on them being a SPA and their username: Special:Contributions/Tbeerejobcbio. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, either. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add - editor was editing under their real name. See their linkedin profile. So yes a COI/PROMO directory piece. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY has been mentioned, no claim of notability in the article, just another medical lab, no in-depth coverage in multiple RS independent of the subject, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, one news item doesn't establish notability Kraxler (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI article and isn't notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Center (Brooklyn)

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable shopping mall. Quis separabit? 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is really marginal. If somebody wants to go to the hassle of trying to save it, I'd help. For what it's worth, I've been by this mall but never shopped there. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good New York Times article [72] that goes into a lot of detail on the development of this mall. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist doesn't hurt. Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I could find other than that NYT article, were mentions in news articles, e.g. "shooting near mall", development near mall, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one swallow doeth not make summer, one NYT articles can not establish notability in the total absence of any other coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Mall

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

Two of the three sources are news about the mall flooding and don't count per WP:NOTNEWS. That leaves one article which only contains one short paragraph about the mall. I found one halfway decent source saying the mall was renovated, but could not find any other sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the article should. There are plenty of other mall related pages that are worse than this one. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject-specific notability guideline applicable here is WP:ORG. Google News finds some sources, but the overwhelming majority is local coverage intended for a local audience (lots in the High Country Press), thus not satisfying WP:AUD. Even coverage about the flooding is all exclusively local [73][74]. There does appear to be any national level coverage that would separate this mall from all the other malls in the world—see WP:MILL. As for the other mall-related pages that may be worse, I don't find that a very convincing reason to keep this one, as many articles exist on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't—see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OSE isn't a valid rationale for keeping a bad article. Mz7 and the nom give the best summaries of why this article should be deleted. Nothing in the engines showed anything which would make this mall notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

București Mall

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

Only contains 2 sources one of which is a wp:primary source. I can't find any other sources for this mall. Fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be Romanian sources at ro:București Mall. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample sources in the German and Romanian articles to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Romanian article appears to have enough sources, so if used here, it would be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Romanian sources in the Romanian article does seem to indicated passing WP:GNG. Don't know how the could not find other sources beside those listed in this article when all they had to do was click on the Romanian one and see them.--Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be&D

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

It may've been associated with notables but I'm finding anything to suggest improvement including better sourcing, with the best results here, here, here and here. Pinging past editors @Meatsgains, Mean as custard, and Hmains:. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been here since 2006. Can we PLEASE get some commentary? Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in this field, but I was able to find this and this fairly easily which may be reliable coverage for the topic of fashion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DGG For the sake of consensus, would you comment? SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further good referencing would be necessary for notability. And there is not even the most basic information: sales figures, number of employees, location of business. Our rule is NOT DIRECTORY, but this is not even up to the minimal standards of a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs 2 and 3 and the "official site" are dead links, web searches turn up sales outlets, and the occasional press release, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter who uses these handbags, no in-depth coverage of the company anywhere, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (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. Article's been expanded since nomination, Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akmerkez

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

Disputed PROD on a mall because of the size. Can't find any reliable sources(fails WP:GNG) and after some searching the best I could find was this[75] indicating that the size mentioned is actually the total area and the total gross leasable area is only 357,846 square feet. Me5000 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had noticed this had been improved and I suppose it's more acceptable now. Delete for now and WP:TNT with a new start and it may be somewhat well known locally and searches found results at News and Books (Books were mostly Guides and News were in Turkish, not English)/so this may need familiar attention especially for translating. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copyedited, expanded and provided reliable refs. Pls recheck. CeeGee 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist is unusual, but done on basis of the last comment. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be properly sourced per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are independent and describe the subject in-depth, article looks good now, quite informative. Although the pertaining WikiProject has some standards about size, they are not absolute, either way, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Kraxler (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2015 (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. Screw it will close and move myself otherwise we're gonna be relisting this for bloody ever! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk Jernbane

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

I'm not Danish so I hope we can get some insight into this possibly non-notable company that has existed since July 2006 (basically the same content) and, at best, this could be mentoned at CFL's article (the Dansk article was moved to CFL Cargo here as well). To the best of my abilities, I searched for sources and found nothing good. Notifying tagger Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois per nom - Judging by this [76] they were merged into CFL Cargo (I'm assuming the Merger happened in 2006?), Seeing as the "Dansk Jembane" DK wiki article redirects to CFL Cargo we may aswell follow suit, I did a few sources [77][78][79][80][81] but not sure if they're related (My laptop translates "Dansk Jenbane" as "Danish Railways" so all could be unrelated!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems this translates to Danish Railway as other articles have the word "jernbane" as well. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're a bit fucked source wise

, Would be nice if a Danish person showed up lol. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to CFL Cargo Denmark - Not gonna lie the whole naming thing is a tad confusing but there we go, Seems better to Move instead of merging to I guess an irrelevant article, Can't be bothered to fiddle with all the above so take this as my final answer lol. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept it should be moved to CFL Cargo Denmark, as the company got a new name in 2006/07. Same owner then and now (directly or indirecly, not totally clear to me presently): CFL, hence the name which in Danish is CFL Cargo Danmark ApS (ApS=Ltd/LLC). If you want to search for sources on the pre-2007 name include ApS and in quotes: "Dansk Jernbane ApS". Otherwise you could very well end up with a great deal of confusion with Danske Statsbaner. I'm not overly impressed with the hits we get. Leaving out the ApS "Dansk Jernbane" is challenging as you will get hits on dansk jernbane which is simply "Danish railway" and not a proper noun. I'll try to look into it later. Did this help? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the added sources, and move as suggested above. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in accordance with Sam Sailor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BPI Energy

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD was keep (but standards have changed since then) and sure it has sources and I could've let this pass by but my searches found nothing good to suggest better improvement (mostly for Building Performance Institute (BPI). I'm not sure how much activity they've had with their bankruptcy but, again, I found nothing to suggest much good and they seem to no longer be listed at the stock exchanges. Finally, emphasizing their low profile, this article has literally not been edited since August 2011 much less significantly. Pinging the only still active user Eastmain. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Once notable, always notable. The litigation with Drummond Company was commented on by two different lawyers at Lexology. Google News isn't very helpful, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I'd appreciate your input here. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant company--refs are essentially mere notices, or essentially primary sources on a legal case. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG - non-notable energy co. The only real sources are lawsuits: the Chapter 11 and the lawsuit against Drummond, which failed. I don't see how that makes it pass WP:CORPDEPTH by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (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.

{{Wikipe

[1] ttp://www.maqar.com/?id=70235

[2] "Most Hopeful Energy Developments of 2011". National Geographic. Dec 29, 2011.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Star_Inn}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Golden_Book_of_World_Records}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One_Sure_Insurance}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CoverHound}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherami}}