Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (EdTech)
Appearance
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Multiverse (EdTech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and also does not satisfy WP:NCORP MickyShy (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands - created by an apparently promotional SPA (I asked on their talk page if they were an undisclosed paid editor and they haven't edited since). There's an extensive WP:REFBOMB - but almost all RS sourcing in the article is fundraising rounds (which specifically don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH); almost all other sourcing is RS passing mentions, small trade blogs, press releases and press release churnalism. The total coverage that is independent in-depth RS sourcing is the Wired article on the company under its previous name. I asked in talk what the three best sources clearly demonstrating notability were, no answers as yet - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
CommentKeep- The article as it stands doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH but there is more detailed coverage out there demonstrating notability. From a quick look around, I've added references from the Economist, Times, CNBC etc that do pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd sway towards keeping and improving. 137.220.68.182 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)- Apologies - was not logged in. Have continued to research and the company seems notable. There are at least a handful of sources that meet the criteria under WP:SIRS, and the company is the subject of several newspaper columns by prominent journalists (eg). Am bumping my comment up to a keep. Ninetytwoseventeen (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)