Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukuru Service

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) 21:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mukuru Service

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to draft instead till ready for mainspace.-- Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References compared to WP:SIRS do not hold up. For instance, the Africa.com article has a byline of "editor" and is written like a press release so likely churnalism. The News 24 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a press release cited and other references which are unreliable or otherwise brief mentions or routine announcements. While moving to draft would be a good WP:ATD, I don't think this would be notable anytime in the near future. The company is almost 20 years old and if it hasn't obtained notability through significant coverage by this point I do not think it is likely to do so in the next 6 months. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources are mostly reposts of press releases. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons aforementioned, draftify isn't a suitable option here more time in the draft space isn't going to cause secondary sources to write articles. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:36, 30 October 2023 (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.