Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Companies. 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|Companies|~~~~}} 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 Companies. 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 2015) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powervision TV

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

Whole article relied on a single reliable source. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and there's precious little else out there. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with nominator Onmyway22 talk 14:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, unable to find any references that establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the required citations for this topic. it is a notable television channel. It is requested to check this page and remove the deletion label. Arun Biju (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro

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

Written to promote the company. Sources are not reliable Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro is a holding company, and it has more than 70 subsidiary companies.

https://mbafakhro.com/what-we-do/

Kindly avoid the deletion of MBA Fakhro page. Arun Biju (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources from top news websites that bizbahrain.com, bahrainthisweek.com, saudigazette.com.sa, twentyfoursevennews.com, dayofdubai.com, newsofbahrain.com etc. Kindly consider to withdraw this page deletion. Arun Biju (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is written from the company's viewpoint. Corporate notability is based on what third parties say about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance and support. I will check and remove all the sentences written from the company's viewpoint. Arun Biju (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hum3D

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

Falls short of meeting WP:NCORP--There's some trivial coverage citing it for its 3D models, and some borderline coverage (a bit PRish) of its Car Render Challenge, which currently has a stronger claim to meeting notability guidelines than the company, but basically nothing analyzing the company itself. I was not able to find additional coverage searching online, although editors better-versed in Ukrainian may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Ukraine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon dear @Rosguill. Thank you so much for the clarification.

I am in the process of improving the article. All your requirements will be taken into account. Have a nice day with respect Kuba Ali (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see 19 changes in the last 5 days, which is good. I would encourage you to keep working on it. But the article still looks to me like two things: a commercial for the company and a description of the competition. Perhaps it might be more productive to consider changing the focus of the article, so that it is primarily about the competition, maybe focusing on the fact that it is an annual competition and with comments about the company limited to those that are necessary to broaden the understanding of the competition. For example, with some digging, you might be able to find the winners for each of the eight years that the competition was held. Radzy0 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider the many recent edits to this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The three new sources added to the article since this was opened are [1], [2], [3]. The first article is a half-step in the right direction: it's actual coverage of the company itself, but it's un-bylined from a source I'm not familiar with and that doesn't appear to have been discussed on Wikipedia yet, and it doesn't provide any independent analysis beyond a basic description of the company. If we're being particularly charitable, it could count as our first source towards meeting notability guidelines, but its companions fall short. The second piece is blatantly not independent, and the third is yet another press release about the design competition. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, thank you for your feedback. I've changed the CgSociety source to the 80.lv - both are authority websites on the 3d modeling market and they do not publish any information without fact-checking by an editor. Thinkinetic.blog is a blog of the software development company (official website) from Spain, that make popular 3d products - so I decided that it can prove the information. Also, Hum3D made a press release about furniture models only in the Ukrainian language, and there are some news websites had written about it. I have chose Apostrophe.ua as the most known (this news can be important to Hum3D because they known for a long time as car 3d modellers and right now developing also furniture). Leksunski (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of buzz about this company, but not a lot of the type of significant independent journalistic coverage we seek in WP:ORGCRIT. I wish the principals of this company the best, but I don't think there's a case to be made for notability for this company right now. FalconK (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FalconK! Please let me add a personal note, as a member of the 3D community. I've been following the contest for years, and I think the Challenge is one of the most significant events of the year among 3D artists. A lot of artists apply to participate, but not everyone passes under the conditions. Many contestants keep diaries in which they gradually post the progress of their artwork. While a large number of novice and experienced 3D artists follow the process. I really think that information about the organizer of such an important event for the 3D community could be useful for Wikipedia readers. I've added links to mentions in those print and online media for 3D artists that I'm aware of. I also see references in the article to mentions on well-known sites outside the 3D modeling niche, such as Forbes and Nvidia. Considering there aren't too many well-known brands in 3D modeling, I find these mentions notable. Flytermit (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from Ukraine and found not so many good sources about the company. Not enough notable yet. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good afternoon dear panelists. I have checked many resources, including those in Ukraine. So it happens that the location of the company in Ukraine, but the main activity takes place all over the world and the importance of the company in the country of residence is less than in other countries, and this is the answer for Молдовський винний погріб. But my main argument is that why is Hum3D worse than a similar company such as Daz Productions, Inc.? As for me the importance of Hum3D and the "Hum3D Render Challenge" contest is significant in order for this page not to be deleted. Respectfully Kuba Ali (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuba Ali pleae read: WP:WHATABOUTX to avoid such bad arguments in the future. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your response, respected Молдовський винний погріб. I wanted to point out that the fact that you did not find enough sources in Ukraine can not be an argument for removal. As the page has enough significant sources. Thank you Kuba Ali (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kuba, you must remember that for companies to be seen as notable, *each* source must meet all of WP:NCORP criteria which includes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Saying that the article has "significant sources" without pointing to (which paragraph in) which source contains material that meets requirements is not convincing. I also suggest strongly, just as Radzy0 and Rosguill mentioned above, to instead look at creating an article about the competition as it appears to be easier to find sources for this which might meet GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some Wikibusines activity on this article. Not a good sign. MER-C 17:20, 7 July 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSC Group

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

I've declined a WP:A7 request on this—"leading Russian supercomputer vendor" is clearly a credible claim of significance—but I don't feel this is remotely viable as a Wikipedia article and nobody in seven years has shown any interest in improving it. ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Russia. ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete notability is not present here. Reliable sources and the other basic stuff is missing here. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. ChristinaNY (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2022 (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 is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LETA Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the cited sources are passing mentions in articles about companies the firm has an invested in. The only one with remotely significant coverage[4] is an interview with one of its founders, so not secondary. Searching for additional sources in English and Russian just turns up more of the same: either passing mentions or primary interviews, press releases, advertorials, etc. Also almost certainly created by an undisclosed paid editor and since edited exclusively by other paid editors. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Joe! Thank you for your comments! I wanted to elaborate a bit more on your comments about the article. First of all, I disclosed a conflict of interests, I openly claimed, that I work for LETA Capital, and that is exactly why I am fully aware of its deals, exits and fund activities. Secondly, I have provided all the links for respectable media sources, where it is clearly stated in what companies and when LETA Capital has invested, interviews with partners, opinions, comments, etc. Thirdly, I could have asked a third party editor to make those changes and nobody would ever find out any connections between the editor and LETA Capital investment firm, but I decided to be open, transparent and with absolute integrity add valuable information about a well known and publicly awarded VC firm. That is why I strongly insist to accept all the changes made by me, and in confirmation of my words I list 20 links, performing a significant coverage of LETA Capital and its Partners Alexander Chachava and Sergey Toporov in well known media and databases.

Moreover, in order not to disseminate the false information I am absolutely open to provide even more links, articles, interviews, etc. to support my position. Hope that this massage clarified a lot and we will not have any misunderstanding in the future! Gegamova (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those links provides significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject? – Joe (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all my respect, all of them are absolutely independent and reliable, as well as the link you proposed in your first comment: https://secretmag.ru/trends/players/aleksandr-chachava-leta-capital-my-podhodim-k-investiciyam-kak-predprinimateli.htm.

They meet all the four criteria.

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. — does the whole interview for TechCrunch qualify? Absolutely.
Be completely independent of the article subject. — is Mike Butcher, editor-at-large at TC, an independent journalist? Absolutely.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source. — TechCrunch has more than 11M monthly visitors, according to SimilarWeb, can it be reviewed as reliable? Absolutely.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. — Did an interviewer provide his own own thinking based on primary sources? Absolutely

While editing this article I took as a reference other articles about venture firms. All my edits are based upon relevant and accurate information, they are independent and do not provide any promo. Please, look through the edits and the sources again, there are no violations of Wikipedia rules. Gegamova (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, with respect, I don't think you know what those words mean in a Wikipedia context. Your list includes entries in databases (obviously not significant), self-written author bios (obviously not independent), publications explicitly deprecated and removed from the article before (obvious not reliable), and interviews (obviously not secondary). Please read those guidelines and get back to us. Also do note that a source has to be all four (significant, independent, reliable, secondary) to count towards notability, and there needs to be multiple such sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, have you opened the link? https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/23/100-million-leta-capital-wants-to-be-a-friend-to-russia-speaking-founders-everywhere/ Or you just see the word "Russian" and start cancelling the whole source/author/person being interviewed? Does it work like that? Tell me, please, why this text is not secondary? It has author's opinion, impartial and respectable. Again and again, I could have asked dozens of people, who do not say loudly, that they have a COI, to edit the article about LETA Capital, which was not created by me, by the way (sic!), I've just added a couple of adjustments to provide audience with the relevant information. OK, so let's just remove ALL the Wikipedia articles about venture capital firms, do you agree on that? All of them are based on such sources like I've quoted. Do you have an example of the article that is based on something else? Gegamova (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the TechCrunch article wasn't secondary? It's probably the best source out of the bunch, but it's from a dubious source, doesn't say much of substance, and is only one. We're only talking about LETA Capital right now, but if you've found other articles on venture capital firms with this level of sourcing, by all means nominate them for deletion too. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Joe, I eternally respect your work in the field of archaeology, your articles about scientists and professors, but I don't think that you are correct in this case. The article about LETA Capital has been a part of the encyclopedia for 4 years already, this article was not created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the deals, exits and the firm's strategic focus, as far as I am familiar with those facts and I have provided the article with the relevant sources. I have never hidden the fact, that I am connected to LETA Capital, and that is because my edits had no promo aims, they were absolutely impartial, they contained no personal attitude, they were just pure facts, as that is required for the purposes of the encyclopedia. Moreover, I added the links to the databases and to the firm's Partners' pages in the major media outlets in order to show that this information has already been reviewed by multiple commissions, editorial boards and that this information is reliable. I've added those links in order to prove that LETA Capital has been a part of the venture capital, tech and entrepreneurial discourse for the past 10 years and that the article about LETA Capital is worthy of being in Wikipedia. Gegamova (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, joy, another WP:COI-plagued article. Those are fun. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respsct, no they aren't fun. I wish we could just ban COI, period. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more of WP:LIST than an article. It's not even worth keeping as list. Venture capital firm that does just that, provide venture capital. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm normally the biggest business article defender here, but this one is lacking. Most of the sources are paywalled or in Russian, hurting my efforts to review them. I translated part of [[5]] and see that it's mostly an interview of the founder, but don't know if the publication is reliable or not. I have to leave that to people more familiar with Russian media. @Gegamova: - can you select the 2-3 best Russian sources from the article and the list above? The Techcrunch source [[6]] is a decent start, but there's not much more, besides funding activity. And their funding activity doesn't seem to be that big relative to other VCs and private equity firms we see on Wikipedia. I thought about suggesting doing an article on the parent Leta Group, with a section for the Leta Capital division, but English sources for the parent are limited as well. A Russian speaker could also help here to see if that makes sense with the Russian sources. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG and I'll be changing my comment to a delete.. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim! Thank you for the comment! I will be happy to navigate you through all the sources. I understand, that is looks like a COI, but I never tried to deny the fact, that I have connections to LETA Capital and my edits were truly impartial. And once again I wanted to mention, that the article about LETA Capital had not been created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the activities of the firm. Gegamova (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per the cogent source analysis by Joe.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! What if I produce more sources? Will it be a relevant argument to recover the page? Gegamova (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reprise Digital

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

Reprise Digital

Non-notable marketing agency that does not satisfy general notability or corporate notability. The body of the article says nothing about significant coverage by third parties. The one reference is a press release about its management and so is not an independent source. The agency is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of The Interpublic Group of Companies, and a redirect to the parent company is a sufficient alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal McCann and Initiative (agency) are also subsidiaries of a subsidiary of The Interpublic Group of Companies and so that shouldn't be a justification for deletion. Raghavkvp (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and created by a sockpuppet account

Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, non notable company. My search didn't find anything that clearly satisfies WP:GNG. BrutBrother (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything notable; this is just marketing. FalconK (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mojix

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; all of the current references are just announcements, mostly from the company's website. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The announcements that you are referring to are formal legal releases from the company. I was not aware they could not be used as references. I can remove them and use third-party sources in all of those cases. Jedonaldson (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page after page of press releases in Gnews, little to no coverage in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references being used from our company website. Jedonaldson (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so you also have a conflict of interest then. You have to mention that and disclose if you've done paid editing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a disclosure Jedonaldson (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Capital Private Limited

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

not notable, not supported by reliable sources nor deep coverage in media. WP:GNG, WP:NCORP red flags Bash7oven (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and almost completely unsourced; can't find anything. FalconK (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiscrowd

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

No evidence of WP:CORP notability; sources appear to be nothing but press releases. Borderline G11. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; supplementary searches reveal only coverage derived wholly from press releases. The article was deprodded without comment. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 04:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional; nothing out there about them in the English press at least other than press releases and interviews. Maybe it will be notable someday; not now. FalconK (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (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 is clear that sourcing isn't sufficient for a company Star Mississippi 22:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otrium

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine startup coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is very little more than a list of funding rounds. Zero notability and clearly fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User eyeballed the article instead of analyzing sources per WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what the user did. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the results ;-) gidonb (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the results is a delete vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of WP:BEFORE, always check to make sure a large chunk of properly sourced info wasn't removed before the nomination was made. You may be voting on a weakened version intended to support the nomination. I restored the info about the business model, renamed simply as business. It's an entire section with nothing about funding. After rereading and trying to see things in the eyes of the nom, I rewrote the business section so nobody could claim it's a manual. Future participants and closer, please review with this new info in mind. The multiple independent sources that are there demonstrate that the organization has received significant independent media coverage, meeting the critical requirements of WP:NCORP. I'll point out that the media reports that the organization has 3 million customers, which clearly makes it notable. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per [7][8][9][10][11]. Nomination is a WP:BEFORE failure. Removal of information was improper. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to these five WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV sources, I will introduce a sixth [12]. All six articles were written by fine journalists. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing the above citations provided by gidonb, I agree that there is good coverage on them and they are notable.Zeddedm (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is virtual SPA. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An overnight conspiracy with a virtual WP:SPA turning up, particularly since it doesn't meet NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the removed material and its citations don't really meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. It's just routine business stuff, not the impact I describe in WP:SERIESA. User:Technotalk's argument about the number of customers is irrelevant for notability; we need some kind of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. And it's all like: won this award; raised that amount of money; profiled in Forbes again; is in business. FalconK (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a handsome article. I've not seen it before but I will need to start using it now. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted comment - I went to your essay and there's a section about significant coverage that says it should "contextualize the impact the company had on the history of its field of industry, its community, or society". Wouldn't having 3 million subscribers suggest that there's an impact on society, just like you wrote you'd like to see? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:
Ref 1 Receives 750k funding Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 2 120milllion raised Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 3 Partnership Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 4 Raises 102.3m raised Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 5 raised a €7m Series-A round PR.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 6 Invests 7million Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 7 Tech Crunch. Raises 26million. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

You start to see how banal these refs are and its more of the same. Routine annoucements, startup news. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just said a lot and really nothing. Notability is judged by sources, NOT by references. I provided 5 sources, all in independent, nationwide media. All but one proudly signed by journalists. The fifth is sourced from the Dutch independent prime press agency. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Thanks for finding those sources. Unfortunately the Dutch seem to be following our lead with paywalls. Hopefully someone will add more info from them. There's also significant non-financial related coverage in this Forbes article. The writer lists 20 years of retail journalism experience on her bio but I've seen others question the "Forbes contributor" (senior contributor in this case) byline and use that in their deletion arguments, so I left it out. But once this is kept, I can use that coverage to improve the article. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: I managed to read all with my free subscription of Het Financieele Dagblad and Google's own paywall workaround ;-) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to miss the references at the top. Looking at each of one of them.

European Off-Price Designer Marketplace Otrium Launches In U.S. Low quality Forbes ref. Routine annoucement of company launching in the US.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Standard notices from a press-release. of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance The 120million Series funding press-release.
Paywalled. Unable to read it.
Paywalled A March 2018 article, when they got a 750k funding round, so probably a press-release.
Paywalled Growth of designer outlet webshop Otrium positive for XL Business Park in Almelo
Paywalled. The url states. 120-miljoen-dollar-op. Press-release.
Paywalled. The url states. 7million raised. Press-release.

Assuming AGF and taking the 3 press-releases as typical of the five, they are extremely poor references that fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. IThey are all from company news, PR. This whole article is native advertising, for a shop. As cool as its a shop, its completly typical coverage of a startup. The article fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom has made several statements that show WP:BEFORE was not done, and that this is a bad faith nomination. Since he says he's a new page patroller, I'm also concerned about his ability to understand what he's reading, or at least the haste with which he's reviewing and nominating articles. He writes above that this article is about a furniture store, and describes the furniture as "cool" and the company as a "shop", but it's a multinational online clothing retailer. I can only assume he saw a picture of their office in one of the Dutch articles and didn't do a translation. He claims to have read the Forbes article but brushes it off as a repurposed press release. Anyone can click on that link and see that's not true. I posted a link to the Forbes writer's bio above. He mentions WP:SPA, which I don't see. He even calls a personal essay an article above, when it's clearly marked as an essay. Finally, as I also pointed out above, he deleted a big chunk of info with sources, since trimmed and restored, before nominating this for deletion, instead of letting the nomination play out. TechnoTalk (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: If you keep making personal attacks like this WP:NPA, I will need to make a report at WP:ANI and cut out the bludgeoning per WP:BLUDGEONing. It is deeply uncool. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: None of what I posted is a personal attack. I'm simply repeating what you said and did, and explaining why it makes me question your ability to fairly monitor and review articles. You on the other hand accused me of being a paid editor once this started to go the wrong way, and said you're going to go after my other articles, so that's grounds for me to take you to ANI. Feel free to save me the trouble of opening a case, and watch for WP:BOOMERANG once your previous block for similar targeting and harassment is brought up. You'll also get another one-way IBAN. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: I routinely received the same threats from the same user. Maybe his way to cover up WP:BEFORE failures? He does seem to try to jam through his plentiful, poorly researched nominations. I don't care, I look at the data, not at the people. If nominator one day comes up with a nomination that does make sense, I would support it. It's the best strategy for sanity at Wikipedia. Keep focus on the data at all times. gidonb (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As an aside, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

NCORP and WP:SIRS make clear that we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS says *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. The takeaway here is that the quantity of coverage is irrelevant - what we require are multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
Some editors don't fully look at the definition of "Independent content". It says that content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. Articles that are essentially copies of a basic company description, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc and without some other in-depth content, fail ORGIND.
Several sources were included by an editor above, claiming that those sources meet GNG and NCORP. I disagree and there's not much point in berating/accusing the nom for not carrying out BEFORE and then producing regurgitated announcements and press releases with claims that they meet GNG and NCORP. All of the sources fail as follows:

This from fd.nl headlines with "Dutch online clothing outlet Otrium raises million in investment" regurgitates the company's announcement of the same day. Just like the other articles covering the news of their new investment like this is WWD and this in TechCrunch. None of these articles contain any "Independent Content" and fail ORGIND
This next from fdl.com is a "puff piece" based *entirely* on an interview with the founders. It contains much of the usual format we're used to seeing with puff pieces (Background, Problem, Initial Idea! and solution, investment, problems overcome, vague future-looking statement) and also has the obligatory "cool" photo of the founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
This in ad.ml (and also carried by a couple of other publications) cannot be viewed without a subscription but from the summary I can see, I cannot find any reasons to believe it might contain in-depth "Independent Content". The article appears to be focused on the topic company's logistics within Europe which is handled by "Bleckmann Fashion & Lifestyle Logistics" and says that the popularity of the brand has been positive for the area (Twente/Almelo). It goes on to interview Bleckmann's Commercial Director (who is a supplier and not unaffiliated to the company). I'm not seeing sufficient CORPDEPTH nor "Independent Content". If someone else has access to the rest of the article and finds something, let me know.
This from rd.nl deals with the same topic as the first two sources above - the raising of 120m. This article refers directly to the announcement in the Financial Times but it is significantly shorter. There's nothing in the rd.nl article that isn't contained in the longer ft.com article which in turn is based on a valuation provided by an "unknown source" (so not RS) and quotes from the company. It has no "Independent Content" by way of analysis/opinion/etc and fails ORGIND.
This from nu.nl says in the first sentence "the company announced on Thursday". It's about the company raising €7m in 2019 and contains a summary of the Press Release from the investment company on the same day. Fails ORGIND

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, or come close. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a fundamental disagreement over whether or not there are adequate reliable sources to prove notability. It would be nice to see fewer comments on contributors and some consensus on the sources or this could go "No consensus". Also, it is unwise to remove large well-sourced sections of an article before it is nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll get on my soapbox here and defend the sourcing, as requested above. A recurring argument with this nomination and other AfD nominations of company articles is that funding announcements don't make a company notable. But when we see a funding announcement, particularly one that values a company as a tech unicorn, doesn't that tell us that an experienced investment company or investor has carefully studied a company's business model and has faith in their management team? They have access to private information that we as editors do not have. Significant repeated funding rounds tell us that someone has done the background checking for us. Until there's consensus at Wikipedia that I'm mistaken, these sources all help with determining notability. Also, the funding announcement is often the first time the media hears of the company, and it then spurs them to do additional coverage of the company. That's why there's more info in the article than just funding. It's just being ignored. If it's because the source is paywalled, I'll be happy to send it to any reviewer. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines should be viewed as the encapsulation and solidification of consensus over many years and by many editors. While we also acknowledge consensus can change and even Ignore all Rules, there has to be some justifiable reason, perhaps even an extraordinary one. There's nothing you've said above that hasn't already been considered in likely hundreds of other AfDs - and yet NCORP still hasn't decided that funding announcements can be used to establish notability. NCORP also requires in-depth (CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" (ORGIND) and funding announcements that simply regurgitate the same announcement is churnalism. I've provided a fairly detailed breakdown of the sources and reasoning for why they fail NCORP. If you're going to convince the community that there are special reasons for keeping an article on this topic company, it will be more convincing to refer to reasons contains within our guidelines and sources where you can argue and point to that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your notability challenge has focused on funding news, and I defended it, but there's more info than just funding info here, and it's all properly sourced with reliable independent sources. Clearly meets WP:NCORP. And anyone who does a WP:BEFORE can find more info, in multiple languages. And I'll keep an eye out for more sources with a Google alert, ensuring this will keep getting even better. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: You're raising a very important point! Recently, I wrote on this very issue in this failed attempt to delete the article of Ahmed Salman, a professional Arab-Israeli footballer, who plays for Hapoel Jerusalem: The mixed herring and salami approach, this article is about this and this about that, is an old AfD strategy and is quite boring. For example: this article is not about the company, it's only about who leads it, who invests in it, what they produce, and how much they make. Not recommended because it pointlessly prolongs discussions where Wikipedians could be working in the article space. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here that the guidelines are very, very clear on this, and nearly everyone seems to agree (and has for a while): investment does not establish notability. The results of the consensus are documented at WP:FUNDED et seq., and you can see them even here. The private information that some investor might have indicating the company is the next world-changing unicorn is completely irrelevant to us here, because there's no deadline (so we can write the article when it actually does change the world), and we're writing an encyclopedia with reference mostly to citable secondary sources (said confidential information is neither citable, nor secondary). Once the press starts reporting on the company beyond interviewing the founders, cataloguing funding rounds, and reprinting press releases, we can have an article. For nearly all companies, that never happens. FalconK (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH per scope creep's source analysis. Per precedent in the application of that policy at AFD, funding announcements are not considered RS towards proving the notability of corporations. Perhaps this should change, but that would require an RFC. As such, lacks enough significant independent sources of the company itself to pass WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4meter4: can you share diffs that funding announcements are considered routine, per policy. We have an article about the companies that secure unicorn funding rounds List of unicorn startup companies, and the term unicorn itself is notable. Otherwise, it suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoTalk I don't need to share differences because it's actually in our written policies at WP:FUNDED under "examples of trivial coverage" in the section "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" where it lists "capital transaction, such as raised capital" as trivial. In other words, it's an official guideline adopted through broad community input of how to view these kinds of sources. It's policy. If you want to change the policy you will need an RFC consensus to overturn it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Gotcha. Thanks for sharing. I think that the guideline as interpreted is overly broad, for the reasons I mentioned above. Unicorn funding is major news. It dominates business coverage. If all I had was routine funding, I'd not write an article about the company. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoTalk I can sympathize with this perspective, and as I said above this might be a policy worth revisiting at an RFC. However, we have to follow notability guidelines as written not as we wish they would be.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage that fails WP:NCORP which is more stringent than WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUDGEON. No need to repeat yourself for the nth time especially with a position that has been thoroughly dismissed by previous editors. Slywriter (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, and it's borderline with WP:GNG but I would say the absolutely routine nature and scope of the references does not show notability for even WP:GNG. I am in complete agreement with Scope Creep's analysis of the sources in his comment above. I have read through this AfD discussion to see if there were any points made that would influence the notability of the subject, but I personally find the arguments defending the article's sourcing to be unconvincing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NCORP. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recent additions to the article, e.g. the advertorial Elite Traveler [13], the similarly-promotional Forbes profile [14], and the obviously promotional I amsterdam [15] ("As the official foreign direct investment agency of the Amsterdam Area, we can help you set up, succeed and expand your business here.") appear to further support deletion per the WP:NOTPROMO policy as reflected in the WP:NCORP guidelines. WP:NCORP notability does not otherwise appear adequately supported by independent and in-depth coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scope's excellent source analysis, which was obvious just looking at the sources but good job on making it easier for everyone to discern! PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Araz (supermarket)

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

Amazingly, with articles in several languages, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever even marginally notable about this supermarket chain and no coverage presented to demonstrate that notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's significant in Azerbaijan; Azerbaijani news is not well represented in Google but one can find some by searching local news outlets. [16] [17]. Unfortunately, all the news about it is so terse that we can't meet WP:ORGCRIT. I guess it's just pretty run-of-the-mill. FalconK (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small a chain to be notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 3 July 2022 (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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efkonindia

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

No significant independent coverage, as per WP:ORGCRIT. – Ploni (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Austria. Ploni (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12: Apparent copyvio of [18]; the same language also appears on other directory websites, such as [19]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:28, 28 June 2022 (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. COI issues don't make a topic any less notable. Additional sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and the article seems to be in a better state than when it was first nominated. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ince Gordon Dadds

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

Insufficient independent coverage for example newspapers, books etc and weak coverage by unreliable sources like press releases. Doubt over wether or not the company is notable, as whilst they bring in plenty of revenue, there’s not much media coverage to demonstrate they are different from the average law firm.

Previously COI tagged after a number of suspicious users where spotted editing the article, including one with the same name as the company. COI tag removed by another editor despite not making significant edits, so COI tag has since been restored as an ongoing issue. GeekBurst (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the name of the firm has changed to "The Ince Group", so you may have been searching for the wrong firm name. I've now changed it in the article, but assuming the article is kept, we'll need to move it. There is a lot of interest in it as one of the few listed (publicly traded) law firms, so you should be able to find plenty of coverage about it as an entity, from independent reliable sources. I can't find exactly where else this was discussed, but generally lawyers and law firm staff tend to be clued up about conflict of interest issues, so it seems likely that the COI editors are young interns or new hires before they join. In any case anyone actually affiliated with the firm probably would have gotten the firm name right, at least. The article is in terrible shape with outdated information and definitely needs a proper update. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of coverage for The Ince Group plc is press releases, primarily discussing business profits rather than that day to day operation, which alone wouldn’t qualify the business as notable. GeekBurst (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but there is also a lot that goes beyond that. Do you have access to Wikipedia Library? I'll come back and help you out in a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG via substantial news coverage in trade publications, such as Law.com [20] [21] [22] and Legal Cheek [23]. The firm is also profiled in authoritative industry rankings, such as The Legal 500 [24] [25] and Chambers and Partners [26]. feminist (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Law.com & LegalCheek articles do not meet the criteria for ‘independent coverage of subject’ & the simple inclusion of a business on a listicle such as those seen at The Legal 500 & Chambers and Partners fails both significance and independence. Please keep in mind a business simply been mentioned in multiple sources doesn’t make it notable, particularly when those sources fail to support the GNG criteria. GeekBurst (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Law.com and Legal Cheek articles I linked are all independent of the subject (none of them are sponsored) and are all non-trivial coverage focusing on the day to day operation of the firm, going beyond a passing mention. I don't see the issue here. feminist (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The Law.com (aka American Lawyer Media International edition) articles are generally OK for establishing notability, if they go beyond regurgitating press releases, which these do (and as with any source, we use them with care in citing them). LegalCheek, however, does not qualify because it's more of an industry gossip and news site, much like Above the Law in the US (which is also very informative but insider gossip-driven). It doesn't mean we shouldn't read LegalCheek and Above the Law while doing background research; it just means we always need to hunt for more reliable sources to back up any facts and cite those sources instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And even if I just look at the nominated article in its current state, it cites sources like the Times, the Law Society Gazette and Legal Business – what's the issue with these sources? feminist (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Law Society Gazette is produced by The Law Society of England and Wales which is an industry association and therefore can’t be accepted as independent of the subject per GNG. GeekBurst (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've struck Law Society Gazette from my comment below. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as in reading the article as it stands now, there is more than enough evidence for notability, with substantial coverage from independent reliable sources including legal industry publications such as The Lawyer, Legal Business, ~~The Law Society Gazette~~, The Global Legal Post, and Legal Futures, and national newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and city newspapers such as The Evening Standard and City AM. (Prior commenter also identified additional coverage establishing notability which currently isn't cited in the article, from publications such as Law.com (American Lawyer Media).) While some of these publications are difficult to access, many of them are not, and in any case their existence should have been identified during the WP:BEFORE step prior to submitting to AfD. I would highly recommend that the nominator work toward Wikipedia Library access, as it will make research on business topics much easier, and we definitely need more editors who are interested in helping to create high-quality business and organisation-related content on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the nominator's frustration with the past COI editors, but in cases like this where there seems to be some coverage but you're not sure how to fix it, I would advise posting a notice to the relevant WikiProject Talk pages asking for input and help from others, rather than using AfD to fix WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability criteria and reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul & Joe Productions

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

Unsourced. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources (only a few trivial mentions), so notability guidelines (WP:NCORP) are not satisfied for this group. ComplexRational (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ComplexRational (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. Is eligible for G5 deletion but it is better to have a more sticky form of deletion. MER-C 11:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: It's not G5 eligible. The blocked sock BrutBrother moved an earlier incarnation of the article by ToasyCake to draftspace and is credited with the creation of a redirect, which was subsequently overwritten by ToasyCake (essentially an objection to draftification by the same author). ComplexRational (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t find any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotair Industries

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

All the content is sourced to either the company itself or local press to Connecticut. Not in-depth coverage. No out of region coverage. No sign of WP:CORP. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found this Associated Press article covering the scandal with parts being sold indirectly to Iran. This event gained national coverage and was reported on as far away as Iowa and Colorado. I looked for other coverage of the company but couldn't find much beyond a brief mention of an ex-employee trying to sell stolen helicopter parts to the Coast Guard. This CTPost article also discusses the company briefly, they are a significant contractor involved with the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. If anyone can find even just 1 more example of significant coverage I would be a keep on this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SyncThink

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

Undisclosed paid article for a non-notable corporation. This page was originally a disambiguation page at Szepesi (which I have restored) that Oknfj hijacked in August 2016 to avoid the scrutiny of new page patrollers. After clearing out the junk, I discovered that there was only one reliable source covering this company in any significant detail, and my internet search failed to find anything else, so I'm nominating it for deletion. The product is IMO not notable either, although you could maybe argue that it was if you were really determined to (given the circumstances, I am not). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this barely-sourced ad. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Design Science (company)

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

WP:NCORP is not met by the company. No reliable sources and independent coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made 4 Entertainment

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

Television production company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE stories of corporate takeovers etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, now a subsidiary of Studio 100, maybe a redirect in order. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems to be mainly press releases or routine coverage. German-language sources may exist but I couldn't find any w/my limited competency in the language. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 11:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axilor Ventures

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

The article relies on routine announcements; fails WP:NCORP. Number of employees 1-10. Bash7oven (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. ––FormalDude talk 07:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of a million accelerators, no notable than any other - possibly less so. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no one of a million, however pretty trivial and routine. Bash7oven (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cymer

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

Clearly advertorial article for a non-notable limited liability company, the few citations that have been scattered into the article are industry publications or commercial websites. Fails WP:NCORP, time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few quality sources on some of their products, but not on the company itself. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessio

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search finds only trivial coverage. See Examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH for details. Reference 4, which has some information about the test, is an interview and thus fails the "independence" test for notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The publishing of books does not inherently confer notability - especially as the publisher, and not the author! The Aftenposten article is about Aftenposten using the company's psychometric tests on job candidates and invites people to apply for a job; not really in-depth independent coverage. The Swedish article would not pass WP:ORGCRIT either, indicating that this isn't just a case of all the sources being hard to find because in a foreign language. FalconK (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesafe

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

Despite the long reference list, I don't think this company actually meets WP:CORP. Most of the references either a) don't mention the company, b) are from the company's own website, or c) aren't reliable sources. There's one CNET source that seems OK, but other than that, this feels like promotional spam. PianoDan (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Even if it can be established to be notable WP:TNT is a better option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aarght Records

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

Not notable Australian local specialist punk record label, now defunct. Fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Vice article is half ok, the other half is an interview. I also found This.Zeddedm (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage's enough to scrape by along with enough artists to suggest importance via WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the Vice article mentioned and the label's roster. The label's releases get mentioned in Maximum Rocknroll a lot too. Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on 4meter4's finding of reference in specialist encyclopedia. ~~Delete~~ This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP rather than NMUSIC which only applies to artists, bands, albums, and songs. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc - these references fail ORGIND.
- This from somethingyousaid.com arguably fails as a reliable source as blogs are considered self-published. Additionally, it is a transcript of an interview with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Vice Media also appears to be based on an interview and information provided to the journalist and is focused on Rich Stanley rather than the topic company. For me it does not contain enough in-depth information on the company nor does it contain sufficient opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company.
- This, this and this either contain information about an album or information about a gig with no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Beat doesn't even mention the company and has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This next from Beat mentioned by Zeddedm above has two mentions-in-passing of the company and provides information about the topic company's annual music show. Fails CORPDEPTH

We need to see a reference where the journalist provides their own "Independent Content" about the company and it needs to be in-depth. Nothing so far meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the significant coverage in Vice Media and Beat, there is significant coverage of Aarght Records in Ian McFarlane (2017). "Aarght Records". The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop, Second Edition. Third Stone Press. ISBN 9780995385603.. If a specialist encyclopedia is covering this topic, we should too per WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment never seen a better illustration for why WP:CORP is not the right yardstick for labels. 4meter4's discovery of an encyclopedia article about this label indicates that we, an encyclopedia, should have an article about it. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree although I'm also not sure what notability criteria you'd want to include for labels. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there, The ISBN of The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop Edition 2 is actually 978-0995385603 - and it's a 544-page book about the Australian music scene (a relatively esoteric one, at that) that's been titled as such - it's a naming conceit, not Britannica or anything. Just to get the 'record' straight... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not an accurate assessment. You are correct that it isn’t Britannica (which is a general encyclopedia). However, it is an academic reference work that is structured, researched, and referenced in the way that specialized encyclopedias are structured (and by a notable academic in the field; we even have a wiki page Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop on this work), . In fact, that’s what it is, a specialized encyclopedia. WP:5P1 states, “ Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias.” Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monticello Spring Corporation

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

The article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:THREE or WP:ORGIND ChristinaNY (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ChristinaNY (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatsoever of notability. FalconK (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2022 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idahoan Foods

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

It seems like they should be notable, but as Steevven1 noted back in 2017, finding independent sourcing is a challenge. They run a lot of sponsored content such as this, but I can't find anything that approaches N:ORG despite their long history. This cites Wikipedia and appears to also rehash a lot of this, which was clearly a press release. Both are more about the incoming CEO than the company. Star Mississippi 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Companies, and Idaho. Star Mississippi 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FTR, their parent company R. D. Offutt also has no article, nor does its founder/CEO, who is the wealthiest man in ND lol...valereee (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged since 2010 for notability. I now know more than I had ever wanted to about powdered potato, which was very little indeed. Absolutely no sign of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Telecom Systems

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

I am unable to find evidence for notability of Intec. A Before shows routine coverage of acquisitions, and itself being acquired, but nothing that adds up to N:ORG. Borderline G11, but it has a long history and could be stubbed back if there were anything on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Specialised vendor, no evidence of notability, FTSE SmallCap doesn't get us over the line. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP --Bash7oven (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article rather frozen in time at 2010 when this company was acquired by CSG International. The article content is an unreferenced list of clients (from whom notability is not inherited) and a list of previous acquisition announcements, which are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from a brief case study I am not finding coverage; fails WP:NCORP. It has a line entry at CSG_International#Acquisitions, so a redirect could be an WP:ATD, though Intec appears to have left no trace at CSG's website. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2022 (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 HEC Paris#Research and Entrepreneurship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incubateur HEC Paris

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are interviews, press-releases, PR and routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing the basis for an institution's incubator programme. I am not seeing evidence that it has distinct notability. There is brief coverage of this incubator in its context at HEC_Paris#Research_and_Entrepreneurship, which can serve as a suitable WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's mentioned in HEC_Paris#Research_and_Entrepreneurship and that's the sum total of the includable information contained here. But it's a part of that institution, so redirecting would be appropriate. FalconK (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INX Digital Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no independent coverage in RS Aoyoigian (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and British Columbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked for UPE spamming. However, this article is also likely UPE spam in a topic area notorious for spamming. Supported by only press releases and similar pieces, non-notable. Delete. MER-C 05:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, with text and references consisting of announcement-based coverage which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business but searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Pictures

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

Fails WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 04:05, 24 June 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keyera

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP, the article is mostly sourced to primary sources plus one WP:ROUTINE announcement in a trade publication, and the only sources I could find from a search were similar WP:CORPDEPTH failing routine pieces, plus churnalism in trade publications. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - largest midstream gas company in western canada. [27] it has been a 5+ billion dollar company for quite a few years now. itsEnviroFuels (AEF) facility is the largest iso-octane manufacturing plant in the world" [28] it is especially notable today given the uncertainty around oil and gas supplies. it is unique in that it processes NGL, does fractionation, refining, storage, transportation, logistics and marketing services for American and Canadian companies (provides essential services as noted here [29]). energy infrastructure (enbridge/TC) and processing (fractionation) makes it a unique company that "doesn't have competition". has an "industry-leading condensate system" [30] [31] [32].Grmike (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)grmike[reply]

"one of canada's leading publicly traded companies" [33] . has history the rimbey plant's 50th anniversary was recognized here [34] "won an award for Environmental Excellence in recognition of its environmental management and for voluntarily de-grandfathering its emissions license." canadian politician says "Rocky Mountain House MLA Ty Lund, who attended the celebration, said the Rimbey Gas Plant fills a need in the oil and gas industry. It is a godsend to the industry as it is a processor and there is a real need for that. And they are doing a super job.” [35]. KEYERA is talked about here [36] [37] [38] [39][40][41][42][43]

As I said, churnalism, unreliable trade publications and passing mentions in relation to things that are not this company. Also, keep WP:THREE in mind. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. it's a Canadian midstream natural gas company and iso butaine refiner that has been a large cap company for the greater part of the last decade. it is larger, more significant and arguably more talked about than three quarters of all canadian oil companies on wikipedia. references and citations were added to the article. I agree that the article did need more references and I provided them.Grmike (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely it's very unlikely that any company that meets WP:LISTED in a G7 country is going to not be notable. But not only that, it's one of the about 10% of stocks listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange that's part of the S&P/TSX Composite Index - the primary index in the nation. A full search for good references is difficult with over 20,000 hits for this unique name in Proquest. But digging deeper (which is a time-wasting exercise for such a blatantly notable subject) yields detailed coverage in articles like this and this and this and this all in national media. Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medallia

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

Per WP:SERIESA, lack of notability. Coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. FalconK (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/MDLA/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
7/26/2021	Berenberg Bank	Reiterated Rating	Buy ➝ Hold	$33.00 ➝ $33.59	-0.74%	View Rating Details
7/26/2021	Needham & Company LLC	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$33.60		View Rating Details
7/26/2021	BTIG Research	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral	$33.60		View Rating Details
7/26/2021	William Blair	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform			View Rating Details
7/26/2021	Craig Hallum	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold			View Rating Details
9/4/2020	Roth Capital	Reiterated Rating	Buy			View Rating Details
8/9/2021	Truist Financial	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$34.00	+0.44%	View Rating Details
8/5/2021	Robert W. Baird	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Neutral	$32.00 ➝ $34.00	+0.95%	View Rating Details
7/27/2021	Stifel Nicolaus	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$40.00 ➝ $34.00	+1.19%	View Rating Details
7/27/2021	Citigroup	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral	$50.00 ➝ $34.00	+1.19%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	Wells Fargo	Boost Target	Overweight	$30.00 ➝ $35.00	+18.24%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	Oppenheimer	Boost Target	Outperform	$33.00 ➝ $35.00	+18.24%	View Rating Details
6/3/2020	SunTrust Banks	Boost Target	Buy	$28.00 ➝ $33.00	+21.95%	View Rating Details
7/29/2019	Stephens	Initiated Coverage	Overweight	$52.00	+22.99%	View Rating Details
3/29/2021	Credit Suisse Group	Reiterated Rating	Neutral	$34.00	+25.14%	View Rating Details
1/19/2021	Bank of America	Initiated Coverage	Buy	$50.00	+26.52%	View Rating Details
8/13/2019	CIBC	Initiated Coverage	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$55.00	+32.21%	View Rating Details
8/13/2019	UBS Group	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$55.00	+40.00%	View Rating Details

Additional sources

Blechynden, Daniel (2020-07-30). "Medallia experience management platform review. Versatile experience management software designed for your business". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The review notes: "Medallia is a popular experience management (opens in new tab) platform which comes with a range of powerful tools. Founded in 2001, it has rapidly grown to become a global provider with over 1000 employees and 15 offices across the world. ... Medallia offers a few different customer service options, but there is a notable absence of live chat support. ... Medallia is an industry-leader in the business analytics and customer experience field, but there are plenty of alternatives available if you don’t have room in your budget for its high price tag."
Gage, Deborah (2012-09-26). "Medallia Aims to Improve Service at Big Companies With $35M From Sequoia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medallia, 11 years old and profitable, has technology to bridge this gap, and it's raised $35 million from Sequoia Capital as part of its first institutional funding round, VentureWire has learned. Valuation is not disclosed. Medallia was founded in 2001 by Borge Hald and Amy Pressman, two veterans of the Boston Consulting Group who noticed when they were on business trips that they preferred the service at smaller companies and hotels. ... Medallia's early years were lean. The company had talked to Hilton Hotels & Resorts, which ultimately became a customer, on Sept. 10, 2001, and had plans to raise venture capital, but 9/11 scuttled those plans. Instead, Medallia was bootstrapped month-to-month until revenue started coming in a year or so later."
Konrad, Alex. "Medallia Shares Soared 76% In First-Day Trading. Here's What Its CEO Had To Say About The IPO 'Pop'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Eleven months ago, customer feedback company Medallia hired an industry veteran named Leslie Stretch to guide it to IPO. On Friday, he delivered – but so well as to raise questions about what constitutes a successful tech IPO in the era of high-flying enterprise debuts such as Slack, Zoom and CrowdStrike. After pricing its offering at a higher-than-expected $21 per share on Thursday night, shares of Medallia raced up 76% and then largely held on afterward, finishing the company’s first day of trading at $37.05 a share. The day was a big win for Stretch and Medallia, an 18-year-old maker of software that helps collect, measure and interpret customer feedback and sentiment for big businesses like Bank of America, Citi and ExxonMobil. ... When Stretch took over at Medallia in 2018, he inherited a then-17-year-old company known as one of the pioneers of using software to measure customer feedback and sentiment through surveys and social tools."
Roof, Katie (2019-07-22). "Sequoia Sees Another Billion Dollar Exit With Medallia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medallia’s market value was over $6 billion as of Monday, including warrants, options and restricted stock. The company raised more than $325 million in its offering."
Adams, Faith (2020-04-22). "Medallia + Voci: Smart Move". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article is written by Faith Adams, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. The article notes: "Medallia continues its buying spree — adding to its numerous acquisitions in 2019 and its purchase of video feedback platform LivingLens in February of this year. ... Technology is just one piece of the puzzle, though, when it comes to CX transformation. For Medallia to continue its success, it will also have to help customers grow and evolve their CX initiatives — a continuing challenge for both technology and service providers in the CX space."
Fazio, Colleen; de Quintanilha, Joana; Warner, Rusty (2022-01-26). "Medallia + Thunderhead Is A Boost For Brands On The VoC Maturity Journey". Forrester Research. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article is written by Colleen Fazio, a senior analyst, Joana de Quintanilha, a VP, Principal Analyst, and Rusty Warner, a VP, Principal Analyst. The article notes: "How will Thunderhead be integrated? Reference clients for The Forrester Wave™: Customer Feedback Management Platforms, Q2 2021 expressed skepticism about how Medallia’s new acquisitions would be integrated. The Thunderhead announcement is the latest of a dizzying number of Medallia acquisitions in the past 18 months, including digital experience platform Decibel, contact center coaching and quality management platform Stella Connect, and speech-to-text platform Voci Technologies. For clients to fully realize the benefits of these offerings, Medallia will need to focus on enabling data integration and analysis in a seamless and user-friendly way.
Pound, Jesse (2019-07-19). "Medallia soars more than 75% in market debut as investors flock to another cloud software IPO". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
The article notes: "Medalia’s competitors include SurveyMonkey, which went public last September, and Qualtrics, which SAP bought for $8 billion in November just ahead of the company’s IPO. ... Prior to the offering, Sequoia Capital owned 40% of the company, an unusually large stake for a venture firm at this stage. At Friday’s high, Sequoia stake was worth about $1.8 billion."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Medallia to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Routine reporting on financial transactions doesn't establish notability though. FalconK (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that analyst reports can be used to establish notability. I have provided 18 analyst reports about the company. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cunard, "Ratings (by analysts)" are not "Analyst Reports". The "ratings" linked above in your table do not contain sufficient CORPDEPTH to be considered as meeting NCORP criteria. But the links to Analyst reports by Forrester and Gartner for example meet the criteria as the provide in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of the columns of the table says "Upside/Downside on Report Date". These are not merely analyst ratings. These are analyst reports that contain analyst ratings alongside research into how the analysts reached their conclusions. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Marketbeat's Upside/Downside ratings are explained here. It's effectively comparing the stock price performance to other indices. I don't believe that qualifies as in-depth information sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. If these analyst ratings contained CORPDEPTH information I would expect to see the "content" of these reports in the article (or any article about a business) but ... we don't as far as my experience goes. Whereas the longer analyst reports will nearly always contain information that may appear in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I finally found a way to get the Craig Hallum report of 26 July 2021, and it absolutely does not contain the type of information meant in WP:ORGCRIT. Of three pages, the second is merely financial accounts over time and the third is required disclosures. The first page announces an acquisition deal (routine) and discusses how financial and operational ephemera will affect the stock price and acquisition. It's very good analysis if you're trying to price the stock, but it's not stuff that is of all that much use when trying to establish the company's role in the broader context. FalconK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2017-07 Kampyle (software) (closed as ✓ keep)

Logs: 2011-12 ✗ G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore NCORP is the most appropriate evaluation criteria. Ratings are not Analyst reports and they do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" as per NCORP criteria. But there are sufficient Analyst reports such as the one from Forrester linked above by Cunard and the one from Gartner linked above by me. Topic therefore meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Listed company with sufficient amount of analyst reports. Meets WP:LISTED. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbric

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

Per reasons at WP:SERIESA. This is the article's second time around; everything that was true in the previous AfD remains true now, but sending here again simply because much time has passed and it's not likely an exact copy for CSD G4. Little to no reliable 3rd party coverage; not notable; promotional. FalconK (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and South Korea. FalconK (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, therefore does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Jacona (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Although this article is better editorially than the previously deleted article, the sources are not an improvement. The most detailed source (from Startup Magazine, weirdly credited to Emma Rosser, but the byline, and author given in previous article, is Jim Glade) is a generic questionaire filled in by some company flunky. There is zero independent analysis or searching journalistic questions in any of that. The rest are press releases and routine announcements. Complete failure of WP:NORG. Note that the parent company, Penta Security has also been previously deleted, so there is no natural merge target. SpinningSpark 16:45, 27 June 2022 (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. After previous AfDs resulting in "no consensus" and then "keep", the current consensus seems to still be "keep". (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kampyle (software)

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

Per WP:SERIESA. Minimal third party coverage, just lots of getting profiled in sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH. The Washington Post article is actually syndicated from Techcrunch. Not notable. I add that since the previous deletion debate, which relied mainly on Techcrunch articles to establish notability, our criteria for what counts as notability for tech startups has become more formalized and I don't think we'd reach the same result today. FalconK (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Israel. FalconK (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of sourcing is books. When there is so much crap out there with not a single source, why delete an entry about a company that is clearly notable?--Geewhiz (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree here. Yannacopoulos, for example, mentions Kampyle only 3 times, and those times are in a list of related vendors, and two screenshots comparing it with those other vendors. This is not the substantial coverage contemplated in WP:CORPDEPTH; it's a passing mention. The book isn't covering how to use Kampyle, even. Gordon name checks Kampyle exactly once: "Companies such as Kampyle... use online survey instruments..." and that's it. Clifton comes close, but still only superficially mentions what Kampyle might be used for in a small handful of examples. These are not, any of them or any of the others, substantially about Kampyle. I'd also like to point you at WP:OTHERSTUFF - I also nominate a lot of essentially unsourced articles here, but in this instance we're talking about Kampyle. FalconK (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Medallia per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Both articles are short and the parent company can use more content and refs. Add just a bit into history. Don't pass any limits of WP:UNDUE. Their domains also merged, as did their operations, so this really makes sense! Kudos to FalconK for nominating. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcon Kirtaran: This is going in the keep direction. I would appreciate your feedback at one point. Would you conceive the selective merge above an improvement over the current situation and a desirable outcome from your perspective? gidonb (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be appropriate. I'm really not convinced of the notability of either company, but if we were to assume Medallia is, a merge would be the right answer as I see it. Thanks! FalconK (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Clifton, Brian (2010). Advanced Web Metrics with Google Analytics (2 ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 457–459. ISBN 978-0-470-56231-4. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Kampyle (www.kampyle.com) is an online Feedback Analytics platform that allows website owners to create their own advanced, branded, and customized feedback forms and put them on their sites for the benefit of their users. Website visitors can quickly and simply submit their feedback with a general grade, feedback category, subcategory, text description, and the contact details. Visitors access the feedback form through the use of a non-invasive feedback button, which can be placed in various locations on the web page. ... Clearly integrating Kampyle feedback data with Google Analytics provides a more complete picture of website performance."
2. Page, Rich; Ash, Tim; Ginty, Maura (2012). Landing Page Optimization: The Definitive Guide to Testing and Tuning for Conversions (2 ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 131–132. ISBN 978-0-470-61012-1. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Kampyle gathers feedback from site visitors in two ways. An orange "Give Feedback" button or triangle permanently pins itself ot a corner or side of the browser window on a website that has deployed Kampyle. The tool can also be configured to display a "Would you like to take our survey?" lightbox popover window to a small percentage of visitors. ... When giving feedback with this tool, users also have the option to leave their e-mail address for you to respond to, therefore allowing you to form an ongoing dialogue with your respondents (particularly useful for discontented ones). Reasonably priced plans for small businesses are available as well as enterprise plans, making this a cost-effective way of gathering feedback for your website and uncovering problems."
3. Tonkin, Sebastian; Whitmore, Caleb; Cutroni, Justin (2010). Performance Marketing with Google Analytics: Strategies and Techniques for Maximizing Online ROI. Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 216–217. ISBN 978-0-470-57831-5. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Two companies, Kampyle (www.kampyle.com) and OpinonLab (www.opinionlab.com) offer excellent tools for collecting and analyzing voice-of-the-customer data on your site. Kampyle's tool, shown on the left side of Figure 8.12, combines a colorful prompt on the corner or edge of the page with predefined categories that make it easy to process feedback. Kampyle also allows you to combine the feedback reported through the tool directly to your Google Analytics data using a prebuilt integration, which allows you to connect qualitative feedback with key segments in the Web traffic with minimal development. For example, Twiddy & Co., one of our success stories from Chapter 3, used an integration between Google Analytics and Kampyle to identify a frustrating disconnect between a print ad promoting a discount and an out-of-date product page."
4. Morales Martínez, Maribel (2010). Analítica web para empresas: Arte, ingenio y anticipación [Web analytics for companies: Art, ingenuity and anticipation] (in Spanish). Barcelona: Editorial UOC (Open University of Catalonia). ISBN 978-84-9029-852-7. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The boko notes: "Kampyle http://www.kampyle.com Kampyle, es un servicio para sitios web que nos permite tener un feedback directo de los usuarios de un sitio web. Kampyle dispone de un simple cuestionario muy práctico y fácil de utilizar, que permite establecer contacto directo con los visitantes de un sitio web. Para utilizarlo es necesario registrarse e incorporar este servicio de feedback en el sitio web, es decir, es lo que se denomina “processlevel feedback service”. Por ejemplo, si accedemos a cualquier página del sitio."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kampyle to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough material to support a standalone article. I consider a merge of Kampyle (software) to Medallia (which was also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medallia) to be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a product therefore NCORP is the appropriate criteria. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *software* in order to meet notability criteria. The links provided above by Cunard (in particular the third link) and independent reviews such as this from IMA. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 28 June 2022 (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 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Tourism Development Company

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

Tourism bureau doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts; not implausible search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts as per WP:ATD. Topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeep

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

Can't see any indication that WP:CORP is met SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find relialbe sources with significant coverage. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I found one not bad - the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/nov/21/didnt-have-choice-think-carefully-about-cash ArcticSnowWind (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article: [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. The reason given for deletion does not hold water. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every mention of a company on something that looks like a news source is good for WP:ORGCRIT. Of the sources mentioned in this AfD, only the guardian clearly meets the bar for source reliability, but the article isn't independent (it's an interview with the founder). As an imprint of the financial times, TNW might, but the TNW reference's situation re. notability establishment is even worse, since it's both dependent and a mention in a list. FalconK (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Routine coverage. Seems to be typical startup news and paid write-up in the Guardian. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Dubious about startups.co.uk. Thenextweb seems ok, although as it has the same picture as the last one it takes it down a bit, but this isn't PR generated the same way. The Guardian is an interview with little original content not originating from that interview, so fails ORGCRITE. Techcrunch is good, and is more than a routine announcement of fundraising, but provides some independent analysis. None of it is horribly in-depth except for the interview, so I come up with the equivalent of 1.5 sources, which may seem an odd analysis, so therefore this isn't a !vote, just thinking out loud. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm normally one of the biggest business articles supporters here, but the coverage isn't that great. Funding of $1M is relatively small, and a lot of the article is name dropping and not actually about the company itself. I initially considered calling it WP:TOOSOON, but they were founded 8 years ago. The founder Avin Rabheru was awarded an MBE. Not adverse to merging this into an article about him, where the sourcing requirement for including company info wouldn't be so high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IA Financial Group

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

Article about a company, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by reliable source coverage and analysis in media and books -- but the only "source" here is the company's own self-published fact sheet about itself. (There's one other footnote, but it's a clarifying note about the company name — "iA Financial Group is a business name and trademark of Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc." — rather than an external reference.)
And while there were other sources here in the past which got stripped in a recent clumsy rewrite by a brand-new editor with a very likely conflict of interest (user name = Inalco, which almost certainly stands for Industrial Alliance Corporation), it was still sourced entirely to content self-published by the company itself and/or simple business directories rather than reliable or notability-supporting journalism, so simply reverting the most recent edit wouldn't solve the problem.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly hard to find information, this is a large Canadian financial institution. Mostly French sources,: they were featured on a consumer protection show in Quebec here: [48], an article about some financial trouble they encountered [49] and a large fine they had to pay [50] and a story about a hacker gaining access to their computer network [51]. Newspaper and a television source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Oaktree b. Also, readers need our help in dealing with this major company. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Passes NCORP per the sources identified by Oaktree b.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edition Axel Menges

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

Notability tagged since 2011, apparently written by one of the co-founders. Cites no sources, and the external links don't help support the content either. I don't see evidence of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and is written a little bit like an advertisement. The sources for the article are not secondary, independent, or reliable. Because of this it is really hard to say it’s notable. Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable. I tried to find something that would make this article notable but couldn't. The book publisher does get cited but the citations are for the books it prints not for the publisher. For example https://www.archdaily.com/977462/is-fake-the-new-real-searching-for-an-architectural-reality and ciation 41 in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05439-w. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small publisher/imprint, uncontroversially fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H Now Entertainment

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

Non notable entertainment channel. Fails WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAB TV (Pakistan)

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

Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs to be expanded, but it's proper broadcast television station in Pakistan with a government-issued TV license (one of not too many), so I think we should keep it around for the sake of completion. Plus, we don't want people looking it up and finding only a page on Sony Sab based out of India and assuming they are the same thing, especially considering the relationship between the two countries. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, to find a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a license does not confer notability. There's none in evidence in the article and none I could find online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, without any refs online, definitely does not meet GNG. VickKiang (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeVosMax is in error; see WP:EXISTS. Not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DTDC

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

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesnt seem notable. Will consider to change my vote if someone comes up with reliable sources. ChristinaNY (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe WP:CORPDEPTH is met between sources like [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] which carry sufficient independent and WP:SUSTAINED coverage on the company. M4DU7 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes India

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

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 23 June 2022 (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 Draftify. for incubation and potential improvement. Recommend going through AfC to avoid G4 issues if returned to mainspace. Star Mississippi 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carlston Academy

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

Does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. The best source is Refinery29: secondary, independent, in-depth, but only arguably reliable (see the RSP entry). Breaking Code Silence on which much of the content is based, is not reliable. Much of its content is quoted from user-generated content sites, like Reddit. The Legal Newsline piece is only tangentially about the facility, and the rest of the sources are non-independent. I did not find any better sources using Google News, Newspapers.com, or The Wikipedia Library. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep and draftify As it makes life easier! ~~I have to agree, also it rather reads like an attack page...~~ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being worked on so let's move it to the draft page. There are more sources to incldue. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this school, there is independent coverage on the school that is notable. There is the Refinery article and additional ones.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/06/10401693/troubled-teens-programs-industry-problem

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wilderness-therapy-camps-paris-hilton-b1984632.html Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent source came up in my search. The whole relevant content in it is just "She spent the better part of the next two years at Eva Carlston Academy, which is viewed as another cog in the TTI machine." That's not significant enough a mention to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles about it being a notable TTI program and featured in articles seems to be notable. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per WP:ATD. There is one reference that meets NCORP criteria for notability as it stands, the article in refinery29.com. The rest are either PRIMARY sources or mentions-in-passing. Searching for sources has not uncovered anything significant for me. Farr4h2004, the original author, has requested the article is draftified and this appears sensible. I note one editor says it reads like an attack page and I agree that the article should have better balance - something else that can be worked on in Drafts. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the "attack page"-iness can be addressed in draftspace, but I don't think this article has enough potential notability for draftification to be the right move here. I'd gladly endorse your position if one more NCORP-compliant source appears during this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, if another NCORP-qualifying source appears, this topic just about NCORP meets notability and I'd !vote to Keep. Which is why I think Draftify is a better option right now - for that reason and the re-balancing. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The school is receiving notability in the news https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/21/utah-man-flips-off-his. This article is solely about the school. So there are several article about it now. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Farr4h2004. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on draftifying, HighKing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to vote Keep 1keyhole (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm now a Keep on this, as a second NCORP-compliant source has been published and mentioned above by Farr.~~ I'd withdraw and speedy close as the nominator, but can't do so since there has been another delete !voter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the second source is NCORP-compliant but it's marginal. And as noted above there are serious enough issues that I'd prefer to see improvement happen outside of mainspace. I'm changing my !vote to Draftify. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. Not in good shape at this moment. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SLT article appears to satisfied some here that it meet NCORP. The article is about a neighbourhood protesting the school's proximity. My issue with this article is that to establish notability, it must contain in-depth information about the organization from an unaffiliated source (as per WP:SIRS). There really isn't anything in this article that meets the CORPDEPTH criteria. Firefangledfeathers, Farr4h2004 is there a particular part of that article you think meets the criteria? Happy to [[WP:|HEY]] if I'm missing something here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing. I'm thinking the first few paragraphs of the section "Eva Carlston Academy moves in" are significant enough coverage. Do you disagree? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, what kills that for me is the "according to its website" at the end of the first para... HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think there's enough other stuff there, even without the line that is attributed to their site. We can glean:
- When ECA got its license
- Where the first facility was
- Expansion to three facilities in the first few years
- Year of purchase of Olympus Cove facility
- Protest from Olympus Cove residents
- Staff responses to the protests
- Entire history of the court case over the stalking allegation
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and require the article to be approved through an WP:AFC review per High King. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is strong enough to pass WP:NCORP, but time in development could reach that point eventually as more sources emerge.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is poor, and has serious WP:NPOV issues. The entire program structure section is sourced with a primary source and a link from a non-profit that tries to prevent abuse in treatment centers. I'm not even sure there's enough here to consider adding some general info to Residential treatment center#Controversy. I Googled the school and don't see any reliable media coverage beyond the piece posted above that discusses the protest held by the neighbor. There are a lot of protests for lots of similar businesses, as well as sober living homes, but that doesn't make the business notable. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Reluctantly. I'm not certain this is notable as I can only find the one source that would go to WP:ORGCRIT, the refinery29 article. It has passing mention elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do to have an article on each institution of this type, though certainly the category of institution is notable. FalconK (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VIDA (online retailer)

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

Business fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG; an apparel startup with no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks. No notability presented. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obvious WP:GNG... I find it hard to square Alexandermcnabb claim of "no in-depth, significant coverage beyond routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks" with these sources [58][59][60][61][62] which are not routine funding announcements and pieces about facemasks, were they missed somehow by the nominator? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Horse Eye's Back cites the same business journal article twice, some profiles, and WP:TECHCRUNCH as reasons to speedy keep. I would not do that. I didn't turn up much, and what I see is dependent sources or otherwise not the significant independent reliable third-party coverage we'd like to see to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. This is also highly promotional. FalconK (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do appear to have fat fingered the same source in there twice... But remember we only need 3 quality sources for WP:GNG. If GNG is met (it is) then WP:ORGCRIT is irrelevant. None of the articles I highlighted are dependent and neither is the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a somewhat unconventional interpretation of the application of NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies as per WP:SNG unless for exceptional reasons it shouldn't (which I don't see here) - arguments based on "only needs to meet GNG so let's ignore SNG and NCORP and SIGCOV and ..." is not the general consensus of the community. FalconK's analysis is spot on, none of the references meet NCORP. And I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:SNG. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 29 June 2022 (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 10:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for UFO Research

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

A 2009 N/C but nothing then or now that meets WP:ORG level of coverage. Has been defunct for a decade, so no indication this will change. Star Mississippi 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Star Mississippi 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find this source on Wikipedia Library, but cannot tell what the actual publication is, so can't comment on quality of source: McCarthy, P. “UFOs in Washington: The Fund for UFO Research Is Working for the Cause on Capitol Hill.” Omni 14, no. 8 (May 1992): 79. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=9205184233&site=eds-live&scope=site. CT55555 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found something similar to that, likely an excerpt, but I unfortunately couldn't find evidence that the hearings ever took place. I'm not 100% sold on my government database research so might have missed it. Star Mississippi 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this explains what the OMNI thing is about. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is an organization so WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I can confirm that the link found by CT55555 is the entire article and is from the May 1992 issue of OMNI magazine and in my opinion although it lacks in-depth details, it could be argued either way on whether it meets NCORP criteria. I've searched also for "FUFOR". While the organization was well-known in certain circles, it is still a niche area and it is difficult to find good sources. The org published a lot themselves and are referenced in other books and magazines (and even in Air Force Research report regarding the Roswell Incident) but usually only as a mention-in-passing and no in-depth information. There is another small paragraph in UFO FAQ by David J Hogan. There another paragraph at the end of this book? and similarly in this one. In my opinion and having regard to the topic and the age of the organization, I think it squeaks past NCORP although I would be happier with one more really good reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per High King and per more sources establishing WP:NCORP. I found some coverage in national papers and entries in two specialist encyclopedias by reputable publishers. However, there are some inaccuracies in the article. For example, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post and the encyclopedias all say the organization was based in Mount Rainier, Maryland not Alexandria, Virginia. Also, a 1996 Chicago Tribune article says Don Berliner was the Director of FUFOR (he was covered as he was in an episode of The X-Files broadcast in the 1996-1997 season) and our wiki article says he wasn't director until 1998 (so clearly our dates for directors are wrong; although the 2012 encyclopedia has the same dates so maybe the Chicago Tribune was mistaken on his role). See source publication info below.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Story (2012). "Fund for UFO Research (FUROR)". The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9781780337036.
Jerome Clark (1993). "Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR)". Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena. Gale. p. 119. ISBN 9780810388437.
Allan Johnson (25 December 1996). "Channel surfing". Chicago Tribune. p. B15.
Stuart Rohrer (8 September 1980). "Tempest In a Saucer: The Smithsonian's Symposium on UFOs The UFO Identity Crisis". The Washington Post. p. B1, B4.
Brienza, Julie (16 Dec 1983). "UFO Believers Point to Reports by Air Force". Los Angeles Times. p. c12.
Ward Sinclair (3 November 1981). "Suit Seeks to Lift Secrecy Veil From Agency's UFO Documents". The Washington Post. p. A5.

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expekt.com

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

one of the first major online sports betting operators made me think this had a chance at being a notable company, but "one of" isn't too strong, and I can't find any sourcing to verify this. There's nothing to expand on from the Swedish article and sourcing in both languages are press releases and executive changes, nothing beyond run of the mill and certainly nothing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, Companies, and Sweden. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Star Mississippi 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. "One of whatever", poorly sourced, is just not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several mentions in reliable and notable sources that can be used to expand the article: https://www.moratidning.se/2009-12-16/conny-gesar-har-salt-spelbolaget-expekt https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/a/BJr3O9/furstendomet-monaco-koper-svenska-expekt https://www.svd.se/a/f44b1215-7130-3092-8ed1-c19102631bb1/svenska-miljardarer-pa-spel https://www.breakit.se/artikel/28238/leovegas-forvarvar-expekt-for-50-miljoner https://www.realtid.se/ledningsbyte-i-expekt-efter-brak/ https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/hans-hoga-spel-betalar-sig/ Sjö (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News about sale/merger acquisitions are somewhat routine and/or press-releases. On the bright side, some of them do seem to provide at least a brief description of the company... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjö. This search retrieves recurring coverage in Sweden's largest daily, this one contains even more form the largest business daily. This article mentions Expekt as having been the biggest online gambling company in Sweden in 2005, while others place is among the 3-6 biggest gambling companies in Sweden overall. Väsk (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe it meets WP:NCORP, however the review of local media is needed to evaluate the media coverage and its quality. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing the new Swedish citations presented by Sjö I agree that it meets notability. For example, these seem to be good: this, this and this. Zeddedm (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there is a couple of WP:SPAs here. Is it a sock pile on? scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Lookings at some of the refs on this page alone. Apart from the raw search url which is non-rs for Afd:

[63] This is a routine annoucement of a sale.
[[64]] This one is a press-release.
[[65]] A routine annoucement of being bought.
[[66]] Another routine annoucement failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Being sold.
[[67]] More routine coverage. The old owners will share 1.4billion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. monies.

I have no faith that any of these references constitute proper secondary sources that are in-depth, independent and significant, that satisfies WP:SIRS. The articles references equally poor. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, sources are routine financing, company news. So we do not pass WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. Agree with Scope Creep's analysis above. Looking for other sources, I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:NCORP applies here and the sources are missing independent content, let alone enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement. Jontesta (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be popular to some but not notable for Wiki. killer bee  14:59, 29 June 2022 (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 is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 15:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GovExec

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. That's all there is to say here, really. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A leader in its market niche whose innovative strategy, acquisitions, and rebranding have been covered by such diverse, influential, and WP-notable publications as Adweek, Politico, Axios, Business Insider, the New York Post, the Tallahassee Democrat, and Technical.ly (to list just the pubs cited in the week-and-a-half that this page has existed) satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. PRRfan (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A leader in a niche is probably not notable as per WP:NCORP, but that aside the sources are problematic - Forbes sites are not RS and a lot of this other coverage is routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address your RS concern, I've removed the Forbes/sites link as a citation from the body of the article. (Both passages it supported are also supported by at least one other RS source.) I've moved the link to "External links" because its author Tony Silber is a journalist of long standing and his take on the company will likely be of interest to readers. PRRfan (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see WP:GNG as satisfied by the sources provided. This goes well beyond routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to one of those references which goes "well beyond" routine funding/acquisition news and announcements? Especially with WP:ORGIND and "Independent Content" in mind. I'm not seeing it. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's Axios assessing and asserting the company's significance in its market: "Prior to GovExec, there hasn't been one media company that has tried to bundle all of the content and services that serve public-sector officials in one place." That is Axios' reporting, not company officials talking.^[1]

• Here's Business Insider assessing the company's importance as business-to-business media, which "has been a bright spot in an industry that struggled during the pandemic, leading to layoffs and furloughs across the media world." The article explores the company's history, distinguishes it from other media companies, compares it to market competitors, presents assessments by outside business analysts, etc.^[2] PRRfan (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The Axios reference does indeed contain a small amount of in-depth "Independent Content" and although is pretty small and light-weight there's an argument to be made that once you exclude stuff that fails ORGIND, there's enough to meet CORPDEPTH and therefore NCORP. But the Business Insider reference does not. The sentence you've extracted is a general comment about "B2B media" - in fact you omitted that from the beginning of the extract. There's nothing in that article that can be said to be in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't omit "B2B media"; I literally spelled out the abbreviation to make things clearer. The point is that the article reports that GovExec is notable, in part, because it and similar companies have bucked a general trend. This is explicitly asserted in the piece's first two sentences, and backed up by the rest of the article. PRRfan (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for me the way your sentence is written is ambiguous. It isn't clear that the extracted quote is actually referring to the general B2B marketplace. But I disagree that the article reports that GovExec is notable. Nowhere is that stated and interpretations that are not WP:V are potentially WP:OR. For me, based on reading the article and the style of writing, my opinion is there is no in-depth "Independent Content" in the article. The comments that aren't directly attributed to an exec or an announcement or filing are, for me, either comments about a general marketplace and not made relevant to this topic company or simple summaries or positioning so that the next quote or sentence attributed to the company is in better context and easier to understand. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It is certainly true that the article does not say "GovExec is notable", a bar that would consign a lot of other companies' pages to deletion. Yet it's hardly an "interpretation" to note that the perfectly RS Business Insider published this article because it deemed the company notable, and for at least two reasons that the piece explicitly asserts and then explores: first, that it is among the rare private-equity-backed media companies that are growing, not shrinking; and second, that it is among the rare media companies that grew, not shrank, during the pandemic. Does the article quote company officials? Sure. Does it put those quotes in a larger context? Yes. (Does it quote an unnamed employee about lingering fears? Yep.) PRRfan (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic of published this article because it deemed the company notable, every article ever published confers notability. I think this company is unusual, they appear to be an important part of the US Government's channel for communication and therefore are involved with a lot of announcements - but nobody seems to have written a lot *about* them. If we could get another article similar to the Axios piece I'd consider changing my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that any article which features a quote or statement from a company isn't independent coverage. Do I understand you correctly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that ORGIND says articles must contain "Independent Content". Usually that's easy to spot because the journalist will not pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company. I assume every article is from a respectable third party publisher but that's not enough, the content must also be intellectually independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the standard that WP:ORGIND lays out for Independent Content... "pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company" is OK as long as there is also "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." which you're clearly saying there is in every other paragraph. This doesn't appear to meet any of the "Examples of dependent coverage" at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll stop this here. I've said all I have to say on this topic. Your various interpretations of NCORP are bizarre and I'll leave it to the closing admin to make whatever determination they see fit. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're using Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this passes WP:GNG so its GNG you need to address. If GNG is satisfied the supplemental standard is irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fischer, Sara (2021-09-14). "Exclusive: GovExec completes 9th acquisition as revenues double". Axios. Retrieved 2022-06-08.
^ Perlberg, Steven. "Government Executive built a profitable media company after spinning off from Atlantic Media last year. Now it's on the hunt for acquisitions". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-06-08.

If you're following WP:N guidelines (which contains the GNG section) then you will also see WP:SNG (the very next section) which explicitly refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. The consensus is that unless there are very good reasons to make an exception, we use WP:SNG guidelines to assess a topic against the appropriate category guidelines - so for companies, that's WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNG can not override a GNG pass, it can only override a GNG fail. Also note that when I read WP:ORGIND I fail to find anything which supports your unique and esoteric interpretation of "Independent Content." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are unfortunately mistaken. The point of the NCORP guidelines is to clarify that there's a higher bar for inclusion of articles about organizations because of the large incentives to write about non-notable companies both in press and in Wikipedia. It's right there in WP:ORGCRIT! FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The references are all based entirely on company announcements - every single references either says that the information was told by an executive (or an executive of one of their acquisitions) or that the company "announced" the news with the remainder being mere mentions-in-passing. Nothing here comes close to meeting ORGIND, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true: "The references are all based entirely on company announcements"; see previous reply. PRRfan (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I believe that you are mistaken... We only look at WP:NCORP after evaluating WP:GNG and GNG is met. Also thats not even a correct interpretation of WP:NCORP as PRRfan has informed you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an explanation above in any case. I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per cited references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. John Yunshire (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NCORP and WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Ventures

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)

Run-of-the-mill VC company that invests in non-notable startups (investee companies with bluelinks in the "Notable investments" section are also of dubious notability). This article relies on routine announcements of fundraising and investments. Refbombed, fails WP:NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Singapore. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:GNG is evident, and the subject is well sourced with enough coverage. At least several investments and exits the company made have their own wikipedia pages, that shows the VC is not dealing with small or rubbish startups. --42.60.202.20 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 42.60.202.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Agree with nom, all sources are funding announcements, and the "notable investments" is pure advertorial stuff. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also appears to be a SPA with only one edit. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the nominator and I think that this company has appeared on wikipedia perhaps too soon, or at least it is not right there. There are many notable coverage and mentions, and the VC looks good Singapore and South East Asis, however it's even not close to the legendary Sequoia Capital - an American venture capital firm that had funded Facebook, Apple, Cisco, Google, Nvidia, YouTube and even WhatsApp and European neobank Klarna. It's similar to Azure Capital Partners, however Azuere is American VC and has better portfolio with larger companies onboard. --2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my monologue 2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources to count as notable --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on 31 January 2022 and has zero edits between 31 January 2022 and 12 June 2022. M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references are there to support key investments, figures and exits. I found it a good practice in many other venture firms article on wikipedia and used it on purpose, not to make the article spammy/refbombed. I don't know what's better—a stub version or a long version of the article, as both are not perfect. The firm itself is the biggest in the region with a stable long-lasting (10 years) media coverage in local and international news outlets. --Tristana Wors (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tristana Wors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. The references in the article don't appear to include any in-depth "Independent Content" from a party unaffiliated with the topic company. It is a big company and perhaps there are references in other languages that my searching skills fall short on. Unless we can identify the references, the topic company fails WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep the page has not a perfect style and sourcing, however it has numerous Techchunch reliable sources and not routine coverage (bigger than just passing mentions) and enough Chinese language news articles are also on the web. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to the Chinese language news articles which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you present the WP:THREE best sources (in any language) to establish notability? M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. There's reference above to "multiple references" and mention of Techcrunch references but nothing that isn't a regurgitation of company announcements. I've spent some time searching for references in Chinese on various search engines but I'll readily admit that my searching in this regard is not reliable but I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Perhaps somebody will post references but until then, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many arguments here get off the track of examining whether the available sources do or do not establish notability. A specific focus on the quality of available references would be very helpful in evaluating the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Did a review suggested by @Seraphimblade::

1. Techcrunch (2021) https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/12/southeast-asia-focused-jungle-ventures-announces-225m-first-close-for-its-fourth-fund/

The article notes: "Southeast Asia’s funding boom is set to continue, with Jungle Ventures announcing today the $225 million first close of its fourth fund. Fund IV started raising in mid-May and is targeting a total of $350 million. The majority of its limited partners are returning from previous funds, and include Temasek Holdings, IFC (which put $25 million in Fund IV), DEG and Asian and global family offices. The firm says this makes Fund IV the largest fund across all early-stage funds in Southeast Asia this year. Founded in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a $10 million debut fund. Then in 2016, it announced a $100 million second fund, followed in 2019 by its $240 million third fund. Fund IV fits in with Jungle Ventures’ pace of raising a new fund every 2.5 to 3 years, founding partner Amit Anand told TechCrunch. Jungle Ventures takes a concentrated approach and tends to invest in about 12 to 13 companies per fund. It’s relatively stage agnostic, writing seed to Series B checks and builds long-term partnerships with many of its investments. The firm has invested in every round of several companies, including buy now, pay later startup Kredivo. Jungle Ventures’ limited partners also do a significant amount of co-investments; in the last three to four years, LPs have invested close to $400 million in its portfolio startups. Jungle Ventures’ social commerce investments include Evermos, which sells halal and Sharia-compliant goods through agents to their communities. The firm focuses primarily on Southeast Asia, but it also makes investments in India.:

2. The Wall Street Journal (2015) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/DJFVW00120150813eb8dqk2e0:

The article notes:Jungle Ventures, a Singapore-based venture firm that invests in a range of software startups based in Asia, has begun raising its second formal fund, a $100 million investing vehicle, a regulatory filing said. The firm has yet to raise capital for the new fund, which is called Jungle Ventures II LP, the filing said. The firm announced in July that it had brought aboard David Gowdey, formerly a partner with TPG Growth, to be to be Jungle Ventures' newest managing partner as the firm begins fundraising efforts. The firm now has four managing partners, the announcement said, including co-founders Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand, as well as former Sony Corp. executive Jayesh Parekh. Jungle Ventures is an early-stage investor in digital-media, software-as-a-service, e-commerce, analytics and payments startups, information from the firm said. Roughly three quarters of the firm's investments are seed rounds, with the remainder being venture-stage rounds. The firm has so far seen several exits, including one in July from travel-technology company Voyagin Pte. Ltd., which was acquired by Japanese Internet-services company Rakuten Inc. Jungle Ventures was also an investor in Bangalore, India-based ZipDial, which was acquired by Twitter Inc. at the beginning of this year for an undisclosed sum. The firm's current portfolio includes Singapore-based digital-media company One Animation, software-as-a-service provider Mobikon Asia Pte. Ltd., e-commerce company Pomelo and more than 20 other Asia-based software companies, the firm's website said.:

3. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/seedplus-is-an-early-stage-fund-focused-on-finding-global-startups-in-southeast-asia/

The article notes: Jungle Ventures started out as an angel investment firm in 2012, but it moved into Series A and Series B financing with its new fund last year. SeedPlus, as the newest fund is called, takes it back to its early-stage roots with a hands-on approach to working with its portfolio. SeedPlus will be run by three new recruits that we recently reported to have joined Jungle Ventures: Michael Smith, who was CTO at streaming service HOOQ, ex-Spotify product manager Gabriel Lundberg, and Tiang Lim Foo, formerly of Evernote. Together the trio — who are listed as ‘operating partners’ at Jungle — will invest in companies in Southeast Asia and work closely with them to scale their business. Jungle Ventures is arguably one of the stand-out investors in Southeast Asia, but SeedPlus is an interesting challenge since — to date, at least — there are few examples of companies with global reach emerging from Southeast Asia. The startups that have scaled the most in the region have provided services very specific to Southeast Asia — Grab is an Uber rival, Lazada is an Amazon equivalent, to name but two — but Jungle is investing significant funds, resources and attention to SeedPlus, which suggests that the team sees the potential for Southeast Asian startups to break that mold and be relevant globally. That makes this is a project worth watching.:

4. Techcrunch (2022) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/17/jungle-ventures-closes-a-600m-fund-bringing-its-total-assets-under-management-to-over-1b/

The article notes: Singapore-based venture firm Jungle Ventures is digging deeper into Southeast Asia and India with the close of its fourth fund. Fund IV totals $600 million, with $450 million for new investments and $150 million earmarked for follow-up investments in its portfolio companies. The fund’s close brings Jungle Ventures’ total assets under management to over $1 billion, which it says makes it the first independent, Singapore-headquartered venture firm that invests across Southeast Asia and India to hit this milestone. Fund IV’s limited partners are split equally between returning investors and new ones. Returning backers include Temasek, IFC, FMO and DEG, while new LPs include StepStone Group. TechCrunch covered the fund’s first close of $225 million in September 2021. Jungle Ventures was founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, launching with a $10 million debut fund. Jungle Ventures has about 60 portfolio companies and says its enterprise value is over $12 billion on $250 million of invested capital, with a loss ratio of less than 5%. Some of Jungle Ventures’ most notable investments include unicorns Kredivo, Livspace and Moglix. It looks for companies that can expand between Southeast Asia and India; for example, Livspace was founded in India and now operates in Southeast Asia, too. Fund IV will continue Jungle Ventures’ “concentrated portfolio” approach, making a projected 15 to 18 key investments out of India and Southeast Asia. It makes many follow-up investments and has invested about $30 million to $40 million in some companies, across multiple rounds.:

5. The Next Web https://thenextweb.com/news/jungle-ventures-10-million-super-angel-fund:

The article notes: There’s good new for young startups across Asia after Singapore-based investment firm Jungle Ventures announced the launch of its new ‘super angel’ fund, which it confirms has raised an initial US$10 million to be invested in early-stage businesses across Asia. The firm already has investments in a number of promising pan-Asia startups and Amit Anand, Jungle Ventures founder and managing partner, says that the new fund will target seed-to-series-A funding opportunities, with investments typically ranging from US$100,000 to US$1 million. The company recently put US$1 million into travel startup TravelMob and partook in a US$1.3 million round for DocDoc, and these deals are exactly the type that will be pursued over the next eight years or so. Then there is the role of the Singaporean government, which recently added Jungle Ventures to the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF), Technology Incubation Scheme (TIS). That, Anand explains, means that the government will augment Jungle Venture’s investments, with each US$1 of funding being matched by up to US$5 from the government. The funding scheme is designed to “jump start” deals, the Jungle Ventures founder says, and investors are given the option to purchase the government’s share in startups over time. Some pundits have speculated that this leaves startups unhealthy focused on raising funding rather than other business-related targets, but there is no doubt that it can help encourage startups and aspiring entrepreneurs in the region where investor support lags the US. While Jungle Ventures is based in Singapore, it is casting its eye across Asia for startups that have pan-continental potential. The firm already has strong links in India, but Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and other markets are very much in focus. Jungle Ventures works with a number of other top VCs, including Dave McClure’s 500 Startups, which was a co-investor in DocDoc.:

6. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/jungle-ventures-100-million-fund-southeast-asia/:

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures today confirmed the final close of its newest $100 million fund for investments in Southeast Asia. The firm announced plans for the fund, which is its second, in September 2015 when it completed a first close. It represents a big step up from the first debut $10 million, and with an increase in capital so Jungle Ventures is shifting its initial focus on seed-stage deals to Series A and Series B investments. The company is still very much involved in early stage startup work, but that is being handled by SeedPlus, a new fund it established in May of this year. Jungle Ventures began spending the capital last year, and the plan is very much the same now that the full allocation is closed. Beyond its focus on companies in Southeast Asia, Jungle Ventures plans to continue to look at opportunities in India and, in addition, other parts of Asia Pacific where it can help startups expand into Southeast Asia.:

7. Reuters (2019) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jungle-ventures-fundraising-idINKBN1X82K6 :

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures said on Wednesday it has raised $240 million from investors, including Temasek Holdings, for a third fund designed to back Southeast Asian startups, highlighting the growing interest in the region’s technology firms. Jungle Ventures’ latest fund comes as a growing number of venture capital firms, including Vertex Ventures and Golden Gate Ventures, have been raising funds focused on the region this year. The fund exceeded Jungle Ventures’ initial target range of $150 million to $200 million, Anand said. In its previous fund, the company raised $100 million from investors in 2016 and its debut fund had raised $10 million in 2012. Jungle Ventures’ portfolio includes Singaporean hotel booking and management platform RedDoorz, cloud-based software provider Deskera, research platform Smartkarma and Thai fashion e-commerce start-up Pomelo Fashion. The firm has created an internal rate of return of about 79% with its four exits that included vacations rental platform Travelmob, Anand said. It typically allocates $10 million-$20 million per company, making 10 to 15 key investments in each fund.:

8. Business Standard (2019) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle is scouting for companies in India which have an opportunity to scale their business into Southeast Asia and globally. Jungle Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms, closed its third fund, Jungle Ventures III by raising a total of $240 million. It includes $40 million raised in separately managed account commitments, for investments in innovative technology and digital-driven consumer businesses across Southeast Asia. Jungle mainly invests in three verticals which include consumer brands for the digitally native, digital platforms for transforming small and medium enterprises and global technology companies born in Asia. Some of Jungle's notable investments in India include Livspace, Moglix, PaySense, Engineer.Ai, Tookitaki and Klinify. Jungle raised more than double the amount of its previous fund, Jungle Ventures II (2016), with nearly 60 per cent of committed capital coming from outside Asia. More than 90 per cent of the capital came from institutional investors spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with new investors accounting for nearly 70 per cent of the fundraise and returning investors for the rest. ungle Ventures was the earliest institutional investor in a number of category leaders in Southeast Asia. These include travel and hospitality startup RedDoorz, fashion e-tailer Pomelo Fashion, online consumer lending and payments platform Kredivo and software firm Deskera. In the past, Jungle has got at least six exits from its portfolio firms including mobile marketing company Zipdial which was acquired by Twitter and travel company Voyagin which was bought by e-commerce firm Rakuten.:

9. Bloomberg News (2021) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-at-first-close-of-new-fund :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. “We have coined two unicorns this year where we have been seed-to-IPO investors,” Anand said. “We have built a franchise that will repeat quarter after quarter, and that separates us from the one-hit wonder venture-capital providers.” Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August agreed to go public in the U.S. through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

10. Inc42 (2022) https://inc42.com/buzz/jungle-ventures-announces-closure-600-mn-fund-iv-india-sea/ :

The article notes: Singapore-based venture capital (VC) firm Jungle Ventures has announced the closure of its Fund IV at $600 Mn. The fund will consist of $450 Mn in the main fund and $150 Mn in additional managed commitments. With this fund, Jungle Ventures will have total assets under management (AUM) at $1 Bn and the VC firm said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC firm to reach this milestone. Incidentally, Fund IV was originally targeted at $350 Mn, with participation from existing investors such as Temasek, IFC, FMO, and DEG. Along with these, new investors such as Mizuho Bank Ltd. and StepStone Group also committed to the fund. Founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, Jungle Ventures was launched with a $10 Mn debut fund. The VC firm has a portfolio of companies with an enterprise value of over $12 Bn, investing around $250 Mn. Some of the startups that form part of Jungle’s portfolio include Livspace and Moglix, the two Indian unicorns. Jungle Ventures had been an early-stage investor in both of them. Apart from the two unicorns, Jungle Ventures also has recently backed the likes of HRTech startup inFeedo and blue-collar workforce management platform Betterplace, the latter of which was exclusively reported by Inc42. Other investments made by Jungle include the likes of edtech startup Leap and insurtech startup Turtlemint, among others. The VC firm has said that it will make around 15-18 investments across startups based in India and Southeast Asia from Fund IV. Jungle Ventures already has made commitments from the new fund, including Vietnam-based digital banking startup Timo and Indian D2C consumer electronics startup Atomberg. The aforementioned inFeedo was also an investment made from the new fund. The first close of Fund IV came in September 2021, when Jungle Ventures raised $225 Mn from existing investors, including Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corporation and German development finance institution DEG.:

11. The Economic Times (2021) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-to-invest-in-india-southeast-asia-startups/articleshow/86163515.cms :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August, agreed to go public in the US through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

12. The Wall Street Journal (2019) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jungle-ventures-third-fund-holds-175-million-first-close-11556571660 :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures held a $175 million first close of its third fund and expects the new vehicle to reach a $220 million final close in the coming months, a person familiar with the matter said. The new fund, Jungle Ventures III LP, already has collected more than the Southeast Asian venture investor’s previous vehicles combined. Its second fund, a 2016 vintage-year vehicle, closed at $100 million and its first fund, a 2012-vintage offering, closed at $12 million. The new vehicle initially had a $200 million offering amount, according to a December filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Placement agent Eaton Partners LLC is assisting with the fundraising process, the filing says. The Singapore-based firm targets early-stage investments in three main areas: consumer brands for the younger population of Asia; digital platforms targeting small and medium-size businesses; and global technology companies originating in Asia. Jungle Ventures’ investments include online home-furnishings marketplace LivSpace, apparel e-commerce site Pomelo and cloud-based business-application maker Deskera, according to its website.:

13. Business Standard (2015) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/jungle-ventures-appoints-david-gowdey-as-managing-partner-115072300382_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures today announced the appointment of David Gowdey, formerly with TPG Growth, as managing partner. With this appointment, the Singapore-based firm will now have a team of four managing partners led by co-founders, Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand as well as Jayesh Parekh, co-founder of Sony Entertainment Television India who joined the firm in 2013. Earlier this month, Jungle appointed Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of Tata Group, as a Special Advisor. Gowdey brings to Jungle Ventures over 16 years of experience in investing and working with internet companies in both mature and emerging markets. He will be based in Singapore, where he will help lead Series A and B stage investments with a focus on the consumer internet sector. Jungle is in the process of closing its second South Asia focused fund. Some of the other advisors with the Jungle Ventures network include Gokul Rajaram, product engineering lead at Square; Lim Dershing, founder of JobsCentral; and Alon Sobol, director of ISP/ telco relationships for Spotify.:

14. Tech in Asia (2022) https://www.techinasia.com/jungle-ventures-fourth-fund :

The article notes: VC firm Jungle Ventures has closed its fourth fund at US$600 million. The investment vehicle includes US$450 million in commitments in the main fund, with the rest coming from additional managed commitments. This pushes the firm’s assets under management to over US$1 billion. In a statement, Jungle Ventures said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC that targets the Southeast Asian and Indian markets to reach that threshold. The fund itself started with an initial target of US$350 million. Half of the total commitments came from existing investors such as Singaporean investment firm Temasek, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Dutch development bank FMO, and German financial institution DEG. Japan-based Mizuho Bank and US-based StepStone Group also joined the fund as limited partners. The VC firm plans to deploy the fund into 15 to 18 key investments across India and Southeast Asia. Founded by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a US$10 million maiden fund. David Gowdey then joined as managing partner in 2015. It currently has an enterprise value of more than US$12 billion, and its portfolio includes unicorn companies such as Kredivo, Livspace, and Moglix. Jungle Ventures recently promoted Yash Sankrityayan, Sandeep Uberoi, and Manpreet Ratia as managing partners.:

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jungle Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wall of text, much? Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage outside funding announcements. I'd drag Livspace to AfD as well, the only bluelink 'unicorn' claimed in this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's wall of text means but I only picked the coverage concerning vc firm from the most reliable and deep media coverage provided in the article. It it significant enough. However, I didn't do it for you or myself, but for the one who will decide. I found @Seraphimblade's comment quite reasonable that no one wants to analyse the quality of sources and coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ArcticSnowWind that's significant effort, it is appreciated. You say those references pass NCORP's Primary criteria. As per WP:SIRS (past of the Primary criteria) *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. Each reference must include deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the references you've selected above, they are all based on company announcements, regulatory filings and other company-created information. This fails the "Independent Content" criteria since there is no analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the topic company. For example (I'll just ramdomly pick two of the references above):

this from WSJ is about the topic company's "hunt for $100m South Asia Fund" and also mentions the company's earlier announcement of a new managing partner. So the sources for the article (as confirmed by the content of the article) are 1) regulatory filing 2) an Announcement and 3) information from the firm. I am unable to identify any "Independent Content" so this fails WP:ORGIND - and therefore WP:SIRS and therefore fails the Primary Criteria. The next reference from India Times dated Sept 13 2021 is about the company closing the first round of its fourth fund and raised $225m. The second paragraph mentions an interview with a founding partner. Also worth pointing out that this exact article originated as a Bloomberg article (journalist also accredited as "Bloomberg"). If this was based on an announcement - which is very likely - then I would expect to see the announcement covered by a lot of other publications and all with a high degree of overlap in terms of information. And we can see that sure enough, it was also covered by Business Today (uses identical quotes too)
Business Times (also practically identical) by way of example. Based on the near-identical texts in different publications it obviously originated from the company and those publishers/journalist have not added any additional in-depth "Independent Content" - fails ORGIND also.
Final point. Essentially there are two types of references (all governed by WP:RS) and while just about any reference including PRIMARY sources and interviews, etc, published in WP:RS can be used to support a fact or piece of information within an article, only a smaller subset go on to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

I hope the above helps explain what kind of references are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability - namely ones where an unconnected party have written in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I read numerous AfD's and also the rules and see, that anyone is glad to explain the rules as they want. Concerning WSJ and India Times - I don't think they are the best. Techcrunch has much more deep coverage. But, almost any of the given sources is independent, as the rule states: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article." And here the rule says how to decide whether or not the sourse is independent:

Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsor (the media are independent and track the company's history from 2013 to 2022 with steady interest)
Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties
(yes, there are some comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them, and only added above the original coverage by the journalists with their overview, description, commentary, analysis, and evaluation of the company as needed for a significan coverage) Taking into consideration that criteria, I see that most of the sources I highlighted here are independent, not relied in any way to the firm (are unconnected parties), and they do include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking.
Also here is another point: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: Such (deep) coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. I see the page has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond incomplete stub.

ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ready to discuss here anything more. Please, don't ping me or address me any comments. Bye bye ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "yes there are come comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them" you appear to be assuming that all of the parts of an article that are not quotes must therefore be "Intellectually Independent". That's isn't true. You provided a truncated definition of "Independent of the Content" and the part you left out is the bit which says that "Intellectual Content" must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It would be helpful if you could explain how "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations ... the easiest and simplest explanation is that they're based entirely from a company announcement/PR/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you cherry-pick the most suitable pieces of text which suit your theory and apply them too broadly. Plus, your generalization "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations" doesn't lave here any room for further discussion. However, I agree, that some pieces of text if copied by other news media may look not truly independent by its nature, but it's still a POV/assumption. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that's the way it appears to you but in the absence of any other "theory", what do you think? In many cases when I see this exact same conduct (edit - should read "the exact same material in multiple sources") I can locate a link to the initial company announcement (maybe on PRNews or similar) but I haven't in this case. I'm not trying to cherry pick any text in particular but sometimes it is easier to pick a phrase or a quote and search for it and then look to see what else is identical between different sources. For example, in looking at the "Business Times" article, it contains a quote "We have coined two unicorns this year". Searching for this quote uncovers multiple different RS publishers repeating the same news about the $225m fund all within a day of each other. I believe it is reasonable to discount sources such as these as containing "Independent Content" and I would argue that to assume otherwise is disingenuous. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, press-releases work in this way. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors in a given day have to tell you that your unique theory regarding "Independent Content" is incorrect for you to take a hint? Its three in the last one, is that higher or lower than normal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have given them significant coverage. You only have to pass the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both. WP:GNG has been met. The company manages over a billion dollars, so business media will cover their activities. Dream Focus 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give much weight to AUM based on private, self-assigned startup valuations. A company which was valued at $3 billion about two years ago was recently valued at just $13 million [68]. Just goes to show how absurdly overvalued these startups can be at the peak of the fundraising bubble. We've deleted at least one private company valued at $5 billion this year and that one had far better sources than the ones on this article. I'm not able to find any WP:SIGCOV beyond the routine fundraising announcements for this company. M4DU7 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "you only have to pass GNG *or* SNG, not both" has been debated many times. The consensus is that for companies/organization, you should generally follow NCORP guidelines. In exceptional circumstances you might default to GNG but I don't see any reason to deviate here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus you speak of? WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline. Dream Focus 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus The consensus is the NCORP guideline itself which, unlike other SNGs, increases rather than lowers the rigor involved in proving notability beyond GNG. As a community supported policy page, it demonstrates that the community as a whole thinks corporations must be held to a higher standard to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add - WP:NOTABILITY has two sections. One is called the "General Notability Guidelines" or WP:GNG for short. The very next section is called "Subject-specific notability guidelines" or WP:SNG for short. In SNG it even specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. I don't think you can argue that NCORP is not the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations? The line taken by some editors is that there are *two* paths to notability - you can either pass GNG *or* pass the SNG. You're welcome to argue that the topic passes GNG just as others are pointing out that the topic fails NCORP. You appear to miss the point that even GNG requires "Independent" sourcing (and NCORP explains how, in practice, that applies to companies/organizations) and you've yet to link to any sourcing that you claim even meets GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the detailed source review above by ArcticSnowWind, which highlights significant media coverage including this from Business Standard [[69]] calling the company "one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms." The source review shows all independent, reliable sources. Meets WP:NCORP. There should be more efforts to expand our financial business coverage beyond the United States and its Western allies. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP criteria. ChristinaNY (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not this again. Seems to be nothing to say about this other than a bunch of financial transactions (see WP:SERIESA). That does not meet WP:NCORP. And one can't use WP:GNG as a backdoor claim that articles documenting routine financial transactions establish notability; they don't. User:ArcticSnowWind's lengthy statement of sources on this article is moot, because aside from heavy reliance on sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH, the articles cited are all routine financial transaction coverage. Why do we have to constantly rehash this? Is there some reason to keep articles that only, and will only ever, list the amount of money raised and subsidiaries? Wikipedia is not a chronology of the doings of market whales. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. The listed sources are enough to write an article not only focused on fundraising or product releases. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newly minted IP above voted Delete at one other AfD before rolling up here - and for our first two edits, we're right on top of AfD protocol!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an IP I made several votes on recent AfD debates listed on Wikipedia. I see the IPs often vote and voted here so I don't see any troubles. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (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 Amuse Inc.. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-Sketch

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

Fails WP:GNG - Japanese artist management agency with no significant coverage and no notability in evidence either as a business or as a record label in its own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has several citations, and my Japanese is not sufficient to evaluate them, but it suggests a prima facie possibility of a GNG pass here (even accounting for the fact that one or two of them look like PR sources). It certainly suggests the nominator's judgment cannot be taken without scrutiny, as no mention is made of the sources in the article or any WP:BEFORE. At worst, we'd want a merge to Amuse Group, anyway, and I fail to see why people keep dragging these things to AfD when we have other venues to deal with them; a redlink here is certainly the worst of all possible solutions. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Lots of ghits, decades of existence. Is there a Japanese Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments focusing on the quality of available reference material would be very helpful in determination of the outcome. "Ghits" and "decades of existence" would not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated the sources, en and ja and zh Wikipedias, non of them contain secondary source information. It’s just lots of mentions of this record label sponsoring things. The ja and zh articles are worse. Fails WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amuse Inc., where it is listed as a subsidiary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2022 (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 is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 03:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life House

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

Overly promotional article stood up on finance news pieces and passing mentions. Company is not notable, fails WP:ORGSIG, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so Condé Nast Traveler, Fortune, Vogue, Travel + Leisure, Architectural Digest are not reliable and quality sources in the world of travel? I have eliminated everything that could have been intended as an advertisement; the article certainly needs to be improved, but the cancellation seems to me really excessive!Cheers--Alessandra Boccone (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have an established, long history. The article here is using them as passing mentions of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko can you help me understand? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 175 sources on Life House Hotels with the date of publication and link:

# DuJour June 23, 2020

Coveteur July 9, 2020 https://coveteur.com/2020/07/09/northeastern-summer-getaways/
Departures August 14, 2020 https://www.departures.com/travel/hotels/nantucket-newest-luxury-hotel-life-house
HospitalityNet August 14, 2020 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41005006/life-house-nantucket.html
Forbes.com August 14, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/taylorboozan/2020/08/14/life-house-nantucket/?sh=39dd537630cf
Forbes.com August 16, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jqlouise/2020/08/16/the-oldest-hotel-on-nantucket-island-just-got-a-covid-friendly-facelift/#7bae6f723e34
Conde Nat Traveler August 18, 2020 https://www.cntraveler.com/story/life-house-nantucket-first-in
Travel + Leisure August 19, 2020 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/life-house-nantucket-hotel-opening
AFAR August 21, 2020 https://www.afar.com/magazine/socially-distanced-trip-ideas
NBC Boston August 21, 2020 https://www.necn.com/luxe-life-with-derek-z/luxe-travel-the-oldest-operating-inn-on-nantucket-updated/2313654/
Galerie August 21, 2020 https://www.galeriemagazine.com/life-house-nantucket-hotel-oldest-inn/
dwell August 28, 2020 https://www.dwell.com/article/life-house-nantucket-66cec4d6
Vogue August 31, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/last-minute-labor-day-getaways-from-nyc
Town & Country September 2, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g12091512/best-places-to-visit-in-october/
DuJour September 2, 2020 https://dujour.com/lifestyle/nantucket-massachusetts-weekend-travel-bucket-list/
Boston Globe September 3, 2020 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/03/lifestyle/nantuckets-life-house-gives-former-bb-fresh-start/
Boston Globe September 8, 2020
Domino September 9, 2020 https://www.domino.com/content/nautical-decor-ideas-life-house-nantucket/
TripSavvy September 12, 2020 https://www.tripsavvy.com/best-luxury-hotel-buyouts-across-the-u-s-5077546
Business Insider September 13, 2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/best-off-season-travel-deals#chatham-bars-inn-cape-cod-massachusetts-10
Vogue September 18, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/nantucket-fall-vacation-holiday-guide
DuJour October 8, 2020 https://dujour.com/lifestyle/room-request-life-house-nantucket/
The Daily Beast October 12, 2020 https://www.thedailybeast.com/taking-my-kids-where-they-dont-belong-is-one-of-my-favorite-things
Modern Luxury Boston October 2020 https://digital.modernluxury.com/publication/?m=46795&i=674126&p=26
Harper's Bazaar October 16, 2020 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g6025/weekend-getaways-from-nyc/
Forbes.com October 31, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/taylorboozan/2020/10/31/life-house-hotels-new-denver-outpost-is-an-inspired-western-pioneers-victorian-homestead/?sh=4c8a9f5c72ab
Hospitality Net November 15, 2020 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41005415/life-house-lower-highlands.html
Town & Country November 3, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/a34031209/nantucket-pandemic-response/
Vogue November 5, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/east-coast-farm-trips-for-a-peaceful-weekend-away
Conde Nast Traveler December 2020 https://apple.news/APTIvr9jvR4eV1JnyUA65FA
Fox31 - Denver November 25, 2020 https://kdvr.com/news/local/cant-travel-due-to-the-pandemic-denver-hotel-staycation-likened-to-summer-camp-for-adults/
Conde Nast Traveler November 25, 2020 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/train-station-hotels
TripSavvy November 30, 2020 https://www.tripsavvy.com/denver-life-house-lower-highlands-hotel-5088708
Colorado Real Estate Journal December 2, 2020 https://crej.com/news/boutique-hotel-opens-in-lower-highlands/
Westword December 1, 2020 https://www.westword.com/restaurants/life-house-hotel-and-wildflower-open-in-denvers-lohi-neighborhood-11853260
303 Magazine December 2, 2020 https://303magazine.com/2020/12/wildflower-new-lohi-restaurant-life-house-hotel/
Coastal Living December 2020 https://apple.news/AzQa2nStMR_CkyF9aC9wWoQ
Ranti in Review December 8, 2020 https://rantiinreview.com/my-first-stay-cation-of-2020-lifehouse-hotel-lohi/
Town & Country December 10, 2020 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g13502602/best-places-to-celebrate-new-years-eve/
The Somm Journal December 2020 https://www.sommjournal.com/digital-edition-december-2020/
Cool Hunting December 15, 2020 https://coolhunting.com/travel/denver-life-house-lower-highlands-hotel/
Travel + Leisure December 17, 2020 https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/best-places-to-travel-in-2021
Architectural Digest December 19, 2020 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/most-anticipated-high-design-hotel-openings-2021
Denver Post December 24, 2020 https://www.denverpost.com/2020/12/23/best-new-denver-restaurants-2020-2/
Vogue December 28, 2020 https://www.vogue.com/article/the-23-most-anticipated-hotel-openings-of-2021
Harper's Bazaar December 30, 2020 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/a35091014/best-places-to-travel-2021/
Forbes.com January 5, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoletrilivas/2021/01/05/the-best-new-boutique-hotels-opening-in-2021/
Tablet January 16, 2021 https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2021/01/executive-decision/
SLEEPER January 21, 2021
Hospitality Design January 29, 2021 https://www.hospitalitydesign.com/galleries/projects-hotels-resorts-wellness/best-hotel-openings-2020/#17
Hospitality Design January 29, 2021 https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/hd/202101/index.php?startid=45#/p/42
AFAR February 5, 2021 https://www.afar.com/magazine/at-life-house-hotels-you-feel-like-you-belong
AFAR February 8, 2021 https://www.afar.com/magazine/6-of-the-best-weekend-getaways-from-nyc
Fathom February 8, 2021 https://fathomaway.com/best-new-hotels-2021/
5280 February 16, 2021 https://www.5280.com/2021/02/wildflower-should-be-your-next-date-night-destination/
Harper's Bazaar February 22, 2021 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/travel-dining/g35411572/new-hotels-2021/
Business Insider March 2, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/best-hotels-in-denver
Wall Street Journal March 9, 2021 https://www.wsj.com/articles/search-engine-kayak-courts-small-hotel-owners-with-digital-app-service-11615294800
Skift March 9, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/03/09/kayak-moves-into-hotels-by-opening-miami-beach-property-in-partnership-with-life-house/
Fast Company March 9, 2021 https://www.fastcompany.com/90611209/travel-website-kayak-goes-brick-and-mortar-with-a-new-miami-beach-hotel
Forbes.com March 9, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandratalty/2021/03/09/kayak-launches-first-ever-hotel-ceo-says-more-to-come/?sh=54f6d2fa5f4f
Travel + Leisure March 9, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/kayak-hotel-opening-miami-beach
Fortune March 9, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/03/09/kayak-miami-beach-hotel-reservations/
Travel Weekly March 9, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Kayak-moves-from-hotel-search-to-hotel-ownership-with-Miami-Beach-property
Hotels Mag March 9, 2021 https://www.hotelsmag.com/Industry/News/Details/97770
Travel World News March 9, 2021 https://www.travelworldnews.com/kayak-enters-hotel-business-set-to-open-first-hotel-in-miami-beach/
Fox News March 9, 2021 https://www.foxnews.com/travel/booking-site-kayak-opening-first-hotel-miami.amp
Boutique Hotels March 9, 2021 https://www.boutiquehotelnews.com/news/hotel/kayak-miami-beach-opening-april-2021
Hotel Management March 9, 2021 https://www.hotelmanagement.net/development/kayak-to-develop-miami-hotel?mkt_tok=Mjk0LU1RRi0wNTYAAAF7u8N_ZE8AEIIdCPCfEDbbiJiMSI5AI0LDXX5N3eqmWBJstj8_WCw0hAeUDOrKmHZSResof1lBgsoTE9qDrNXWNinyeLcbawDK_W564bCQrz2hPFB-Zms&mrkid=126050490
Barron's March 10, 2021 https://www.barrons.com/articles/worldwise-life-house-hotels-founder-rami-zeidans-favorite-things-01615325846
Robinhood Snaks March 10, 2021 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ohhhh-macrame-kayaks-hotel-leap-amazons-alabama-situation/id1386234384?i=1000512374332
USA TODAY March 10, 2021 https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/hotels/2021/03/10/kayak-open-first-tech-forward-hotel-miami-beach-april-11/6937780002/
Business Insider March 14, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/kayak-first-hotel-in-miami-beach-florida-tech-life-house-2021-3
Travel+Leisure March 19, 2021 https://apple.news/Awm0nIcEkSpSszbqbneDEAg
Miami Herald March 23, 2021 https://www.miamiherald.com/miami-com/restaurants/article250121794.html
Miami Herald March 29, 2021 https://www.miamiherald.com/article250234815.html
Conde Nast Traveler March 31, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/story/what-to-do-in-nantucket
Commercial Observer April 2, 2021 https://commercialobserver.com/2021/04/openings-from-carbone-to-moxy-hotel-enliven-the-miami-scene/
Miami News Times April 5, 2021 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/the-best-new-restaurants-to-try-in-miami-this-week-april-4-2021-12052429
New York Times April 6, 2021 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/dining/nyc-restaurant-news.html
Food & Wine April 7, 2021 https://www.foodandwine.com/news/opentable-restaurant-layla-miami-beach
Ocean Drive April 8, 2021 https://oceandrive.com/life-house-launches-kayak-miami-beach
South Florida Business Journal April 9, 2021 https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2021/04/09/opentable-operated-restaurant-opens-in-miami-beach.html
Eater Miami April 13, 2021 https://miami.eater.com/2021/1/7/22212001/miami-restaurant-openings-2021-new-map-guide
Skift April 15, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/04/15/what-a-stay-at-kayaks-new-miami-beach-hotel-revealed/
SELECTA April 15, 2021
Travel + Leisure April 19, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/boutique-hotels/kayak-miami-beach-hotel-opening-review
Travel Weekly April 19, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/A-first-look-at-the-new-Kayak-Hotel-Miami-Beach
Travel + Leisure April 20, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/it-list-the-best-new-hotels
Travel + Leisure April 20, 2021 https://www.travelandleisure.com/hotels-resorts/it-list-the-best-new-hotels
Forbes.com April 25, 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ramseyqubein/2021/04/25/hotter-than-ever-the-newest-hotels-in-miami-beach-for-2021/?sh=4e59fdbd46df
The Daily Beast April 26, 2021 https://www.thedailybeast.com/kayakcom-can-recommend-a-new-hotel-in-miamiits-own?ref=topic
Business Insider April 26, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-these-9-hotel-chains-are-ones-to-watch-2021-4#
Conde Nast Traveler May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-in-the-world
Conde Nast Traveler May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-in-the-world
Conde Nast Traveller (UK) May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-north-america-mexico
Conde Nast Traveller (UK) May 6, 2021 https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/best-new-hotels-north-america-mexico
Indagara May 10, 2021 https://www.indagare.com/destinations/north-america/mid-atlantic_region/washington-d-c/articles/best-new-boutique-hotels-us-2021
Denver Post May 10, 2021 https://theknow.denverpost.com/2021/05/05/new-colorado-hotels-vacations/257827/
Bostom Magazine May 11, 2021 https://www.boston.com/travel/travel/2021/05/10/best-new-hotels-conde-nast-traveler/
Cape Cod Times May 11, 2021 https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/05/10/hottest-new-hotels-named-conde-nast-includes-nantucket-property/5022704001/
Time Out Miami May 12, 2021 https://www.timeout.com/miami/restaurants/best-new-restaurants-in-miami?sgs
Architectural Digest May 21, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/ads-2021-hotel-awards
Fodor's Travel May 22, 2021 https://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/florida/miami/experiences/news/a-travel-booking-site-opened-a-hotel-and-you-know-what-its-nice
Eater Miami June 1, 2021 https://miami.eater.com/maps/best-middle-eastern-food-miami-map-guide
Thrillist June 8, 2021 https://www.thrillist.com/travel/miami/miami-goodtime-hotel-openings
Business Insider June 14, 2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/life-house-hotel-software-is-a-winner-pandemic-labor-shortage-2021-6
Hospitality Design - Awards June 10, 2021 https://hospitalitydesign.com/projects/hotels-resorts/hd-project-awards-finalists-2021/
Food & Wine June 14, 2021 https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/miami-summer-restaurant-scene
Architectural Digest July 6, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/coolest-indoor-outdoor-restaurants-to-dine-at-right-now
New York Magazine July 7, 2021 https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-covid-safe-hotels.html
Indagare July 19, 2021 https://www.indagare.com/destinations/north-america/new-england/nantucket/articles/visiting-nantucket-2021
Fathom July 22, 2021 https://mailchi.mp/fathomaway/building-the-future-of-local-hotels?e=d1a0d2b144
5280 August 2, 2021 https://www.5280.com/2021/08/staycation-inside-lohis-gorgeous-life-house-hotel/
Wall Street Journal August 7, 2021 https://www.wsj.com/articles/he-devised-a-solo-soccer-workout-to-a-heart-thumping-beat-11628330400
Elle Decoration UK August 19,2021
Southern Living September 10, 2021 https://www.southernliving.com/travel/beach-hotels
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 5, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/the-best-hotels-in-the-world
SUITCASE UK October 9, 2021
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 9, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/new-england-top-hotels
Conde Nast Traveler - RCA AWARDS October 9, 2021 https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/top-hotels-in-denver-readers-choice-awards#intcid=_cnt-verso-bottom-recirc_d[…]7-46d0-ab98-541aa882d793_text2vec1
Cape Cod Times October 10, 2021 https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/10/08/nantucket-marthas-vineyard-cape-cod-[…]resorts-inn-conde-nast-traveler-readers-choice/6017401001/
The Denver Post October 10, 2021 https://www.denverpost.com/2021/10/05/best-hotels-resorts-world-conde-nast-colorado/
Out There October 10, 2021 https://www.outtherecolorado.com/news/multiple-colorado-hotels-dubbed-best-in-the-world-i[…]awards/article_79e66934-260c-11ec-9855-e7fe402618fc.html
Yahoo Lifestyle October 10, 2021 https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/top-30-hotels-northeast-readers-110000998.html
Tablet Magazine October 11, 2021 https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2021/10/chaos-agent/
The Knot October 18, 2021 https://www.theknot.com/content/nantucket-island-honeymoon-weather-travel-guide
Time Out Miami October 21, 2021 https://www.timeout.com/miami/news/this-adorable-little-havana-rooftop-bar-is-finally-reopening-102121
SLEEPER October 22, 2021 https://www.sleepermagazine.com/stories/projects/life-house-little-havana-reopens/
Fortune November 7, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/11/07/miami-boutique-luxury-hotels-life-house/
Forbes.com November 8. 2021 https://www.forbes.com/sites/anniedavidson/2021/11/08/the-hotel-capturing-the-spirit-of-miamis-little-havana/?sh=4e8933414742
Miami New Times November 8, 2021 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/new-miami-restaurants-include-izzys-brooklyn-smokehouse-terras-and-no-mans-land-13251335
Io Donna - Corriere Della Sera November 8, 2021 https://www.iodonna.it/lifestyle/casa-e-design/2021/11/08/jenny-bukovec-designer-life-house-hotel/
Travel Daily News November 8, 2021 https://www.traveldailynews.com/post/life-house-reopens-its-first-boutique-hotel-in-miamis-little-havana-neighborhood
Hospitality Net November 8, 2021 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/announcement/41007164/life-house-little-havana.html
The Infatuation November 8, 2021 https://www.theinfatuation.com/miami/guides/the-miami-bar-hit-list-where-to-drink-right-now
The daily Beast November 10, 2021 https://www.thedailybeast.com/life-house-little-havanaa-neighborhood-hotel-with-a-different-miami-view?ref=scroll
Le Figaro November 11, 2021
Vogue November 15, 2021 https://www.vogue.com/article/where-to-go-and-what-to-wear-november-2021
Town & Country November 29, 2021 https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/travel-guide/g13502602/best-places-to-celebrate-new-years-eve/
Departures November 30, 2021 https://www.departures.com/travel/life-house-hotel-nantucket-miami-denver?linknav=us-dp-home-featuredarticles-card-135540-p-3
Bloomberg December 2, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-02/kayak-backed-hotel-startup-life-house-raises-new-funding
BetaKit December 2, 2021 https://betakit.com/life-house-closes-77-million-cad-round-co-led-by-inovia-kayak-to-help-hotels-boost-profitability/
PhocusWire December 2, 2021 https://www.phocuswire.com/kayak-leads-60m-series-c-for-life-house
Fortune December 2, 2021 https://fortune.com/2021/12/02/from-fintechs-to-workers-unions-the-future-of-tech-is-about-scaling-to-power/
Skift December 2, 2021 https://skift.com/2021/12/02/kayaks-hotels-partner-life-house-receives-60-million-in-new-financing/amp/
PitchBook December 3, 2021 https://pitchbook.com/newsletter/kayak-leads-60m-round-for-life-house
TravelWeekly December 3, 2021 https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Kayak-leads-funding-round-for-Life-House
Reportur December 3, 2021 https://www.reportur.com/agencias/2021/12/02/kayak-invierte-en-la-operadora-de-sus-hoteles-life-house/
Bnn Bloomberg Canada December 3, 2021 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/kayak-backed-hotel-startup-life-house-raises-new-funding-at-250-million-valuation-1.1690123
WSJ PRO - Venture Capital December 3, 2021
FinSMEs December 3, 2021 https://www.finsmes.com/2021/12/life-house-raises-60m-in-series-c-funding.html
TravelDailyNews December 3, 2021 https://www.traveldailynews.com/post/life-house-raises-60m-in-funding-from-inovia-capital-kayak-and-tiger-global
Hotel Management December 3, 2021 https://www.hotelmanagement.net/food-beverage/life-house-raises-60m-funding
Architectural Digest December 15, 2021 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/last-minute-holiday-travel
Vogue December 20, 2021 https://www.vogue.com/article/the-26-most-anticipated-new-hotel-openings-of-2022
New York Magazine December 29, 2021 https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-hotels-miami-2022.html
The Vermont Standard January 6, 2022 https://thevermontstandard.com/shire-woodstock-hotel-sold-to-reopen-next-week/
Hospitality Design January 7, 2022 https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/life-house-the-shire-woodstock/
AFAR January 25, 2022 https://www.afar.com/magazine/all-you-need-to-plan-a-south-florida-vacation-this-winter
5280 January 26, 2022 https://www.5280.com/magazine/5280-february-2022/
Vanity Fair Italy January 27, 2022
Fathom February 8, 2022 https://fathomaway.com/preview-best-new-hotels-2022/
Miami News Times February 8, 2022 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/miamis-best-super-bowl-lvi-watch-parties-13850732
Harper's Bazaar February 22, 2022 https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/a38913719/best-places-to-travel-2022/
Cool Hunting March 8, 2022 https://coolhunting.com/travel/word-of-mouth-little-havana-miami/
Fast Company - Most Innovative Companies Award March 8, 2022 https://www.fastcompany.com/90724488/most-innovative-companies-travel-2022
AFAR March 16, 2022 https://www.afar.com/magazine/kayak-hotel-miami-beach-review
SUITCASE March 21, 2022
Thrillist April 5, 2022 https://www.thrillist.com/drink/miami/best-rooftop-bars-miami
Hospitality Design April 18, 2022 https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/life-house-south-of-fifth/
Hospitality Technology April 20, 2022 https://hospitalitytech.com/ht-exclusive-life-house-hotels-new-revenue-management-marketing-system
Monocle April 20, 2022 https://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-entrepreneurs/549/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, funding announcements used as "sources", press releases or mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because reading the 173 sources immediately we understand that we are talking about a solid reality and encyclopedic relevance.Alessandra Boccone (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Alessandra Boccone: No one is going to evaluate 173 sources, and from skimming the URLs it seems they are mostly trivial or dependent coverage, which WP:ORGCRIT notes is not sufficient to establish notability. What are the best WP:THREE sources that show the company is notable? The best sources are those where the author has conducted original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 03:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:NOTADVERTISING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 21 June 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EVRYTHNG

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

Prod was disputed; all references appear to be press releases; insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP due to a lack of notability. Sources include a salary review link likely to have been written by the company itself, trivial press release for an award from a market consulting firm, and other articles from non-reliable sources with questionable independence such as this, this, and this. What little coverage there is from actual news outlets, these outlets do not appear to be sufficiently established to count as a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. The only source I consider to be reliable, independent, and secondary is this from the Guardian. However I do not see multiple of such sources covering the subject significantly. There are plenty of trivial mentions elsewhere about their capital raisings or acquisitions, but these business updates do not really add to notability in my view. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has been covered in several analyst reports which meet WP:NCORP's notability criteria. For example this by Proficient Market Insights, this by The Business Research Company and this from Research and Markets. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analyst reports can demonstrate notability of a publicly traded corporation, particularly those listed on major stock markets per WP:LISTED. According to my research, I cannot see that this company is publicly traded? It appears to be traded on the private market and owned by venture capital investors like Dawn Capital and Samsung per Craft. Hence the analysis you link to does not fall within the letter or spirit of that guideline - which seeks to establish that publicly traded companies are likely notable. Not all such traded companies may be discussed in traditional sourcing methods like newspapers - but they may well instead attract stock analysis instead. This allows notable publicly traded companies ability to meet notability standards. I do not see how EVRYTHNG meets notability here. Thoughts? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines are implying that analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies in order to meet notability criteria. Analyst reports meet the requirements of WP:SIRS in that they provide in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of analysis/opinion of a company and therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. They're a gold standard really for meeting NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing. Though I can't see the contents of these reports to verify WP:SIGCOV the fact that EVRYTHNG is mentioned in the abstracts gives me enough confidence. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources provided by HighKing are useless unless someone has access to the full report. I'm not sure why they're being used as an argument to keep when they haven't even been added to the article, and likely will not be given their high cost to purchase. I'd maybe support draftification over delete, but I'm definetely not finding those sources alone to be sufficient justification to keep this PR soup. ––FormalDude talk 04:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude technically per WP:PAYWALL the high ridiculous cost of the reports would not prohibit their use, but I certainly agree with everything else you said! Indeed, I feel the high prices lend to my argument above that the sources are not there for public consumption, they are expensive because the article subject is a privately traded company and so the sources, accessible or not, do not even count as sources for the purpose of meeting WP:NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The high cost can also be used to argue the other side. The information about these companies is important enough to fetch a high price. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's much if any correlation between this company's importance and the prices of those sources. ––FormalDude talk 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so neither of us are making persuasive arguments about the price. In any case, WP:PAYWALL applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity, I'm unable to verify the contents of the reports. But in my experience analyst reports nearly always meet WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed. As a side note, wow, two of the sources presented herein cost $4,000+ USD apiece to access for reading. Maybe some Wikipedians that are a bit affluent can help out here! It's only money, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reports provided by HighKing are not suitable. They are not automatically independent or reliable. And the subject of this AfD is listed there among many other companies, which doesn't make EVRYTHNG a unique or the best or the largest one. Here is the citation from the abstract: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5504908/iot-market-in-uk-2022-2026 "The robust vendor analysis is designed to help clients improve their market position, and in line with this, this report provides a detailed analysis of several leading IoT market vendors in UK that include 8power Ltd., Adaptive Wireless Solutions Ltd., Altiux Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Arm Ltd., AT and T Inc., Eseye, EVRYTHNG Ltd., and Oracle Corp." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSnowWind (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really vague. Not suitable in what way? Because I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. The abstract, for example, says this report provides a detailed analysis on several leading IoT market vendors. So, t is a detailed (CORPDEPTH) analysis (ORGIND) in a RS. And this doesn't meet NCORP criteria because ... ??? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets NCORP criteria per Highking.ChristinaNY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMoney

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under wp:GNG or SNG. This is a product of a company. I would have merged myself but more eyes on this edge case would be good. Of the two sources, one is a website which does a pretty thorough review. The other is a link to their own website. I did a quick search and found little more. Suggest a merge into the company's article. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added extra references. easyMoney (a trading name of E-money Capital Ltd) is no longer owned by easyGroup according to Companies House and therefore should not be re-merged into the easyGroup article. easyGroup is not a regular conglomerate, but a branded venture capitalist which licences its name out to the various operating companies, some of which it only part owns (like easyJet) or does not own at all anymore (such as easyMoney).

LRB2000 (talk) LRB2000 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are partly routine and partly significant coverage in media. --Bash7oven (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, the suggestion of a merge is not valid anymore, as the company doesn't belong to easyGroup anymore. Bash7oven (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited references. Absent a source analysis, I don't see a compelling deletion argument being made.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2022 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatil

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

Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The existing references mostly fails WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Bangladesh. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. 2A01:4C8:1C00:3884:A196:1239:C503:533 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources 1 and 2.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sources must meet NCORP guidelines in order to count towards notability - multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", is defined as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In order to count towards notability, references cannot rely entirely solely on information provided by the company, including quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc.

Your first reference, The Daily Star is a profile of the chairman and managing director and the last section is about the general furniture market. There is no "Independent Content" and this reference fails ORGIND.
The second reference from TBS fails for the same reason. All the information is provided by the company and I cannot identify any "Independent Content" that (a) is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company and (b) meets CORPDEPTH.

Neither of those sources meet NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with the following sources.
- Karmakar, Suvankar (15 January 2020). "বৈশ্বিক ব্র্যান্ডের পথে বাংলাদেশের হাতিল". Prothom Alo (in Bengali).
- Noyon, Abbas Uddin (25 January 2020). "From timber shop to going global". The Business Standard.
- Hasan, Mahmudul (13 May 2019). "Hatil brings robot carpenters". The Daily Star.
- Chakma, Jagaran (2 September 2021). "Hatil: from an idea to an established brand". The Daily Star.
- Irani, Bilkis (11 January 2020). "Hatil wants to expand globally". Dhaka Tribune.
- Rahman, Arifur (5 November 2021). "আসবাব নিয়ে বিশ্বে". Prothom Alo (in Bengali).
- Uddin, Saif (14 May 2019). "Hatil continues to widen global presence". The Financial Express.
- "Hatil opens virtual showroom". The Daily Star. 10 January 2018.

There are several more sources in the article and many Bengali language sources which can be found on Google. Gorlono (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sourcing Gorlono IDed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 16 June 2022 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedzai

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues from the last WP:AFD persist. While sources have been added, the quality hasn't changed much, as added coverage is limited to funding round announcements, interviews with executives and brief coverage about the number of patents that they have filed for. What WP:NCORP requires is significant coverage about the operations and impact of the company, and it seems that it's still WP:TOOSOON for that, unicorn status notwithstanding. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Portugal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I was notified of this discussion by the article's main editor, Ssfdz, who has a conflict of interest.) I think the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and VentureBeat references might be enough to establish notability, but I'm not sure of the reliability of (and can't really evaluate) the Portuguese sources. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address Tol's comment - the Portuguese media sources provided are all very reputable and notable. Links to their Wikipedia sites are included:
Ssfdz (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Ssfdz[reply]
- Comment It is largely irrelevent whether the publications mentioning the topic company are "reputable and notable" so long as they pass WP:RS. Since the topic is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and the references fail ORGIND as they are entirely based on information/PR/Announcements from the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have located several analyst reports on the topic company (e.g. Gartner, Forrester, Aite) which pass WP:NCORP. Topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is a unicorn inherently notable? No. Is significant, independent sourcing evident? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nope, a unicorn is not inherently notable. We look to NCORP's criteria for establishing notability for companies for that and we look for appropriate references. It is long established that analyst reports that profile the topic company meet NCORP's criteria for intellectually independent in-depth opinion and analysis. Although many of the reports are only available to purchase, we can see that the topic company has been profiled in the following:

More than enough to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources mentioned can indicate notability for a publicly traded company per WP:NCORP, which this is not. Notability not established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what NCORP guidelines say. Which guidelines say that analyst reports can only establish notability of publicly traded companies? With respect, what you're saying does not make sense at all, there's no difference in our criteria for companies whether they're publicly traded or not. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It’s time to close this discussion as no consensus. To quote the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This has already been to AFD. Issues persist since then. So far I have only seen one policy based argument, the other is just "per" that vote. Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP, and these reports are not appropriate sources to demonstrate notability. It is my interpretation of NCORP that analyst reports can be used for publicly traded companies. This is not a publicly traded company. There is a special allowance for the use of analyst reports at NCORP because publicly traded companies are likely to be notable but may not have been covered by traditional media sources. Being publicly traded on a well known index is almost in my view, a de-facto indicator of notability. This discussion should be left open for as long as possible to allow for more commentary. It is likely this article will be up for discussion again if it is just closed and the issues left unaddressed. I am quite concerned that hidden reports are all that is being relied on. While WP:PAYWALL technically applies, surely if these are the only sources, this is a verifiability issue. Usually someone, somewhere on Wikipedia has access to paywalled content through the library or another means. I do not see evidence anyone relying on these analyst reports has even read them, given the $3000+ fees...how can someone rely on sources not read? Can anyone here declare they've read the source and summarise what it says? MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP" - I think you meant to say "My Delete !vote and one Keep !vote have been debating NCORP guidelines"? The purpose of AfD is to determine whether the topic is notable (or not). You're saying analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies - I assume you're basing that assumption on WP:LISTED which says:

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Applying your logic to all of this sentence would also imply that "independent press coverage" also can not be used except for publicly listed companies. Clearly that isn't the case. Analyst reports are regarded as in-depth, significant and independent.
Now, although I do not have access to the full versions of those reports, nor even to the parts of those reports that talk about the topic company, parts of reports that deal with specific companies are sometimes made available by those specific companies. This is useful for those that have not seen or read analyst reports previously. You often need to provide a "business" email address in order to receive a link to the company-specific reports. I have managed to locate sections that do not require a business email address - this is an extract from the Aite Matrix report for SAS and here is one for NICE (another vendor). I believe it is safe to assume that these reports meet NCORP criteria for those companies and I also believe it is safe to assume that the sections on this topic company will also be sufficient to meet NCORP.
Finally, you're aware of WP:PAYWALL but WP:NEXIST also says we only require the *existence* of suitable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the *possibility* or *existence* of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. So while I have not seen any of the reports in which the topic company has been listed in the table of contents as being covered by analysts within the report, I have read hundreds of analyst reports and those from reputable analyst firms are as close to a gold standard that we have for meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:1-1] Fischer, Sara (2021-09-14). "Exclusive: GovExec completes 9th acquisition as revenues double". Axios. Retrieved 2022-06-08.

[:2-2] Perlberg, Steven. "Government Executive built a profitable media company after spinning off from Atlantic Media last year. Now it's on the hunt for acquisitions". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-06-08.

[1]

[2]