Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagace

Zagace

Zagace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Relatively new startup company. Only passing mention in sources. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- *this is not a new startup company. the previous article that was deleted had more citations. it has been a subject of various media all over the world for a long time now. a quick google search can show the same. the comments of sabiel are libelious and there are clear and valid citations. yes its a new company but its a valid encyclopedic content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• the source of information on this company is those articles that clearly when put together are a topic of encyclopedic content. not some random advertisements written on grounds that are dumbfounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- *the content about this article is related to an individual and the citations are valid for the content posted in the article. i dont understand how a new startup company cannot meet encyclopedic contentjane22 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - no reliable 3rd party sources found for this company. Cotton2 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- the links posted have reliable sources of information consistent with the content of the article. the source of this information is those articles. thats why its a topic in the first place. aren't forbes reliable? aren't business insider? these are provable links with information sufficient to have the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep- the links include news and publications from persons whose opinions are third party to warrant a valid source of information on the article. all those articles are not from one person. so saying no 3rd party sources doesnt make any sense at all.a company is run by people who sell opinions and provide information to third parties. and in this case third parties have verified the information by having information on the same in various links and news articles which they have published. how is that not 3rd party?jane22 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the reference from Forbes, it's barely a mention of anything, but what's there is not about Zagace. Please review WP:RS to understand why these references do not make the grade as reliable detailed 3rd party references. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Cotton2 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep-the article has a statement Zagace, which has raised funding from local investors, is a cloud enterprise software that helps companies manage inventory such as accounting, payroll, stock management, marketing and many more all bundled in a simple and easy to use format called Zag apps. similar to what is on the article. this is written by a forbes staff by the name kerry dolan. and this is contained in the first paragraph after the first picture appearing on the page. forbes staff is a third party and credible source. The content of this article has the same exact wording. how is this not reliable? are you even reading this? Ierierie 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you User:jane22 for joining this discussion. All contributors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia! I am having trouble leaving a message on your talk page, could you be impersonating another user? That is quite difficult to do here, every entry is logged in a page history file. I can't find an entry by User:jane22 in this page's history, here Cotton2 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• that was a typo . the messages are continuous and am the same person writing the response. Ierierie (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and optionally Redirect to Mubarak Muyika who appears to be marginally more notable. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you User:K.e.coffman for joining this discussion. The concern on the article was about whether the 3rd party references were reliable not whether the content is notable or not.According to WP:RS. The contents in this article are independent work whose citations and as an independent topic and qualify as different to warrant a different page. They may be sourced from articles where other persons are notable but because its a different topic, hence the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Quick online search produced enough sources to easily pass WP:GNG warranting existence of the page. Notification or concern should not be about deletion but other wikipedia article issues. users comments on page warrant other reasons of concern that can be solved without deletion as this is a credible independent topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)

• Delete - After cleaning up Mubarak Muyika, very few sources discuss this company in any depth, and sources like this suggest it's a very small operation, possibly just Mubarak himself. Maybe not, but sources don't clearly say otherwise, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Article cited by Grayfell is just in passing. other articles suggesting larger operations like this and citing the same has grown to be an independent topic warranting a separate page. From various links such as this.various other people are involved proving the operation is not just Mubarak himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)

I stand corrected. That source does say he employed twelve programmers, but it barely mentions the company at all. It's five short sentences in a profile that is focused on Mubarak as an individual businessman. The Forbes list (which is heavily over-used as PR) is likewise about him as an individual with only a single sentence about the company as it relates to him. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Investors have also been mentioned who are other people. Companies started by notable individuals such as this qualify as a topic of their own as they have been corraborated as existent for the content herein and is verifiable. this is an unnecessary exchange of arguments that is drifting from the initial reason for this article being posted for deletion review. All arguments here have been elaborated. so we will keep looking for mistakes to justify why content is up for deletion? this is an unnecessary fight. How does one employ programmers in the same article then again running only one company. this argument doesnt make sense at all and is very unnecessary. let other parties give other arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)02:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not get to dictate who does and does not get to participate in this discussion. The company's notability is not inherited from Muyika's notability. Just because his article might meet notability guidelines doesn't automatically mean the company is notable. Twelve employees is very small for a notable company. WP:NCORP was cited by the nominator, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and other reasons for deletion could be brought up and discussed. That the article has already been deleted twice before suggests possible promotional issues which go against Wikipedia's principles, for example, and suggest that the article and its sources should be examined carefully. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• in your previous comment you stated it was muyika alone involved. i cited that he is not alone. now again its too small of a number. Am not dictating any terms. so its promotional because you feel like without a valid argument. how is that making any sense? all things stated in the article have been properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)04:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "I stand corrected", which means that I admit I made a mistake. It was a minor one, and I stand by my point that this is a small company which doesn't warrant an article based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Not everything that in the article is properly sourced, and not everything that can be sourced belongs in a Wikipedia article. Are you affiliated with the company? Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Am not affiliated with the company and i still stand to believe that it is a valid independent topic whose source is articles related to muyika. its a different subject with wide coverage by mention in ore than 10 citings whether in passing or in full. i see no reason why the page should be deleted. the articles clearly elaborate and explain the company as an independent entity despite the connection to muyika Ierierie (talk contribs)04:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)