Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

WP:DS/CO

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!} 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas

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

Unnecessary List. Some of these companies just have a presence in the city, not based in. We could add McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Starbucks to the list as well if we kept going that route. Currently there is a category covering the companies based there and at the moment there are only five. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per NLIST, these companies are not notable as a group for this characteristic. This list is short enough it can easily be addressed in Amarillo, Texas#Economy (with reliable sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the entire world has changed dramatically since this was created in 2006. Weyerhaeuser, for instance, sold its Amarillo assets a long time ago. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and other techno visionaries changed corporate business forever. Whatever businesses are operating in Amarillo in 2024, it's unlikely to be this list as is. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Suonii180 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2024 (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!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeySports

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage I find is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Ice hockey, Softball, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sources out there. This article reads as WP:PROMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH. The only sources I see do not provide significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2024 (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!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeySports

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage I find is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Ice hockey, Softball, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sources out there. This article reads as WP:PROMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH. The only sources I see do not provide significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2024 (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!} 23:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chain

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

Company fails WP:NCORP. While several articles cited here provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, they are all in highly local publications (the Manistee News and the Traverse City Record-Eagle). Under NCORP, "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town)... is not an indication of notability." A BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I think there should be more in newspaper archives - this company is very notable in its particular niche and most of the innovative things done by this company were in pre-internet era (it was founded in 1960). Nienders (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on the editor proposing material to prove notability; can you supply the newspaper citations? I searched archive sites in my BEFORE search but I only found local media coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that the appropriate criteria is WP:NCORP which provides extensive guidelines on the criteria for establishing notability. None of the reasons provided by Nienders are supported by any references but nevertheless I searched several newspaper archives to see if I could find something that might support what was said. Unfortunately, there isn't a single article that meets NCORP criteria that I could find. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 29 May 2024 (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⁺⁺ 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the local newspaper of Traverse City should be considered reliable and independent, but much of the news is mundane coverage. 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the Traverse City paper should be considered reliable and independent. But under WP:AUD, that's not all that's required. Significant coverage in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I think the debate is whether the paper serving Traverse City (population 15,000) is "local media"; I think it is, which is why I nominated the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was all I can pull up [1], interesting bit of trivia, but not enough for NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2024 (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 Lyoness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET

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

Fails notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per presented sufficient newspaper coverage and general notability presented as a significant cashback entity, possibly one of the first global ones (operating since 2003).--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how is it different from Lyoness? IgelRM (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyoness as per WP:ATD - this topic fails the criteria for establishing notability on its own merit, a redirect is the sensible alternative to deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 11 June 2024 (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!} 22:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event Supplier and Services Association

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As to be expected with a small trade association, coverage is only in WP:TRADES publications and does not rise to the level of coverage needed for NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers

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

Completely unreferenced list of parts manufacturers, with no indication that the set of these companies is somehow notable. Article was tagged by another user without proper followup but after having a look I'm taking it upon myself to complete the nomination. @Cowinatree: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry I didn’t follow through. I’m pretty new to this. Cowinatree (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even an article, really, it's a couple bullet points. It would also appear to run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If urgent, the content can be placed on Motorcycle suspension with sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category would be more appropriate. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2024 (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!} 21:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Group

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

No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. GSS ^💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a major Swiss engineering company. According to de:Marti Holding, their annual turnover is more than a billion Swiss francs. Anyway, a quick search in Swiss Google News confirms notability immediately: [2], [3], [4], [5]. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Thank you for finding these sources. Although I can't read German, Google Translate revealed that the second source is routine coverage with no significant detail on the company, and the fourth source is just a passing mention, both of which fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the third one provides some depth about the company. The first source requires a subscription, so I am unable to review it; let's wait for others to check it. Additionally, it's a bit confusing whether the article is about a group of companies or an individual company, as the article on de-wiki is titled Marti Holding. If the article is kept, the title should be adjusted accordingly. GSS ^💬 13:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles will talk about what the company does, and go into depth about their projects, and not about the company itself. I think that should be expected of most companies, but especially of private and construction companies who are not usually in the spotlight. With that said, as Kusma noted, even information about the company itself can be found to establish notability.

The article is intentionally meant to be about the entire group, as I think that their internal company structure and who does what is not easy to decipher for the public and it's also not interesting. Marti Holding is a holding company that owns a lot of others, but in a sense it's just one of many official entities and less relevant. They call themselves Marti Group on their own official channels and that's why I named it as such. Fejesjoco (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A deal worth a billion dollars for a significant part of Central Europe's greatest infrastructure project may be "routine coverage" to you. To me, it indicates that we should have an article about this company. It is an embarrassment that we did not have one ten years ago. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past hour, I added some sources found by Kusma and some others by me. These go in depth about the company so these should satisfy the notability and coverage depth criteria, much better than the average in this category. Additionally, since at one point you wanted to delete the article on grounds of being promotional, I added a section about a controversy of theirs, with even more direct news coverage sources. Fejesjoco (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but I'm biased). With recent edits to the article, the concerns raised should be eliminated by now. BTW found another strong source [6] a university research project. The talk page lists additional ideas for extending the article, but even without that it should be good enough already. Fejesjoco (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent edits make this clear. Daask (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (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 Star Premium. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Action

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

movie channel fails WP:Notability, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Fox Action Movies to Star Premium per past consensus regarding premium multiplex channels; this article should have never been created and the FAM title moved here, and this channel isn't going to surprise you with a sudden cooking show or comedy block. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 00:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CombinedX

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

fails WP:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, Norway, and Sweden. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the delete tag and since I am Swedish, I thought to give my opinion. There is a Swedish Wikipedia page for it, so I will look at that and check sources. Atlassian (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still reading Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and checking how it's done on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22 as well as on other dates. Atlassian (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is a clear keep.

There already is a great explanation on the talk page. I will soon add some comments of my own. Atlassian (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building on the explanation that's already present on the talk page:

This is a publicly traded company. You and I and anyone else can literally become shareholders tomorrow or the day after. This alone is notable.
Furthermore, as a publicly traded company, it is legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports. Those reports are frequent and very detailed, the latest I could find was 128 pages long. This is not your run-of-the-mill routine coverage. This is much more detailed than a newspaper article.
Here is some information from Bolagsverket and Swedish Economic Crime Authority about penalties and prison sentences associated with information delays and false information in reporting – [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
I could also find multiple reliable, independent, secondary and significant-coverage sources as specified Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Here are three examples from Swedish business magazine Affärsvärlden: [12], [13], podcast analysis. And there are many others.
Also, the comment left on the talk page is accurate in saying that there are many many less notable companies on Wikipedia.

Atlassian (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports specifically, regulatory filings, while meeting the "detailed" and "reliable" parts, do not meet the "secondary" or "independent" parts of the criteria. Haven't looked at the press coverage though, so I won't leave an actual opinion unless I have the time to do so later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am away today, so I'll attempt to make a writeup in one go, in bullet-point form.

I am new to Articles_for_deletion part of Wikipedia, but the rules are clear and I think that I have a good grasp of them now.
Indeed, regulatory filings is a good description. They probably should count for something (given the "detailed" and "reliable" parts). Oftentimes, regulatory filing will be more detailed and reliable than a news article.
I made a quick search for press coverage and will share my results here.
In my search, I excluded articles about its quarterly or annual reports, like this one from Dagens Industri. This kind of articles are plenty, given that the subject is a publicly listed company.
I also excluded coverage by financial institutions, like this one by Swedbank. I excluded because it probably can be considered "routine coverage" even though most companies do not have this kind of coverage. I also excluded other similar links like these –[14], [15], [16],[17], [18] and others.
I also excluded coverage pages dedicated to publicly traded companies like those on Financial Times, Bloomberg and elsewhere. Some examples include: [19],[20], [21], [22], [23] etc.
I also excluded articles by "micropublishers", like "IT Karriär" (examples here: [24], [25], etc.)
When searching for media coverage, I tried to find more publishers rather than more articles from the same publisher. I don't know, there seems to be plenty. Some examples below.

Atlassian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources may be behind paywalls but publicly traded companies are typically notable. ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (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 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist

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

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 May 2024 (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!} 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PayTabs

AfDs for this article:

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

Every source is a press release of crummy business award except for one - an interview with the founder published in Entrepreneur India. Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Saudi Arabia. BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, I have asked the brand to place proper link. This will be done in 1-2 days. 180.151.24.178 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If "the brand" want to contribute anything, they should limit themselves to suggesting edits on the article Talk page, with full disclosure. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious WP:UPE but evaluating on a notability level, it fails WP:NCORP. Yes, NEWSORGINDIA applies to some of the referencing but even outside of that the references are weak. For instance, this reference in the Arab News seems good on its face until you see it is basically WP:CHURNALISM from this press release. Nothing I can find would meet WP:NCORP. I am also anticipating IPs and SPAs coming with keep votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links are OK now, if there is any specific media mention that needs to be deleted or replaced, please let us know. We will get it done Prince-rkt (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> We

Are you a paid editor? If so, why have you not disclosed your affiliation under WP:COI? BrigadierG (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not a paid editor, I am an employee of PayTabs and have created the page with limited expertise. Therefore you can let me know the limitations or problem areas. 180.151.243.205 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they are your employer, this is still a conflict of interest, even though it was done in good faith. You might like to build your expertise on Wikipedia by editing articles that are not directly related to your work, but on things that interest you. In the case of this page, you would be well advised to contribute through the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. G4 and enforce AFC or some other process. Probably could have just drafified tbh, the title is already salted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (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!} 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAHDUOO Saxophone

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Taiwan. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. Sahduoo (traditional Chinese: 薩得爾企業有限公司; simplified Chinese: 萨得尔企业有限公司) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2024 (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 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPC SYSTEM

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

Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:

Sources 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14-17 are sponsored content/press releases and not independent.
Sources 3, 5, and 11 are WP:INTERVIEWS.
Sources 4, 8, and 9 are in WP:TRADES publications and thus ineligible for notability. (Source 4's over-the-top language praising the company and its CEO gives it the ring of sponsored content or paid placement.)
Source 6 is a primary source.
Source 7 purports to be a clip of a newspaper article but it is hosted on the subject's own website and does not include the date of publication, and search to verify on the publication's site turns up no result.
Source 13 is a straight-up advertisement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had been meaning to get to this one but hadn't found the time till now. Does look like there isn't anything, and interesting to note that the frwiki version of the article (which seems to be created by the glocked MehdiKass) has been deleted due to cross-wiki UPE spam. Wonder if it's a translation? Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 25 May 2024 (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 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D&W Performance

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

All of the sources in the article appear to be from the company and I couldn't find anything meaningful about the company in either Google or Google News. It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York, site of its headquarters. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and New York. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NCORP. Looking for D&W Performance yielded nothing of value. D&W Diesel, which I think is the same company, has more hits but everything that turns up is trivial coverage. Pahunkat (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2024 (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 13:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Software

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [34] [35] [36]... "not great" would be an understatement. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, California, and Texas. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (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⁺⁺ 20:30, 28 May 2024 (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 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (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. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 28 May 2024 (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 KT Corporation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited

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

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All refs fail WP:SIRS in one way or another, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have not been able to find anything either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also comfortable with a redirect to KT Corporation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UtherSRG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KT Corp. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2024 (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!} 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledgie

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

I'm unable to deorphan this article and upon closer inspection, the article doesn't seem to pass any of the points of WP:GNG. The sources are mainly self-published sources (WP:RSSELF), and the secondary sources are blog posts (possibly falling under WP:USERG), with the only news coverage being hyperlocal. Sources 1 and 2 are blog posts. Sources 3, 5, 7, and 8 are self-published blog posts (with source 3 being a Tweet). Source 4 is from KC Free Press, which seems to be a hyperlocal news organization (but I would say it's closer to a blog). Source 6 links to the topic's GitHub page. Sources 9 and 10 link to the home page to websites, so are not even sources for anything in the article. My research on this topic results in user-generated blog posts, hyper-local news coverage or original sources (such as their website or their GitHub). BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about people named Pledgie, nothing for this website. Sources used aren't adequate, blogs or primary sources, download sites and the like. This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I searched for reliable sources but couldn’t find any with in-depth coverage. The subject fails WP:GNG as it requires multiple in-depth coverages from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:47, 24 May 2024 (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!} 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MartianCraft

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Created by SPA. Maybe their app Briefs has some marginal notability (and that's a big maybe), but companies don't inherit notability from their products. Best source I could find – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Virginia. – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, either in the cited sources or anywhere else that I found by searching. The short version of the cited sources: not even a single one of them provides substantial coverage of MartianCraft (many provide none at all) and some are not independent sources either. The longer version: the cited sources are:

A link to a dead web site, domain up for sale.
No mention of MartianCraft at all, though it does describe "Briefs", which is one of MartianCraft's products.
Another link to a dead web site.
A page on the company's own web site, announcing a business deal.
A web site selling one of MartianCraft's products.
Another page on the company's own web site, announcing another business deal.
No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, and using the website's search facility failed to find any mention of MartianCraft anywhere on the site.
No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, none found by searching other pages on the same web site, and the site describes itself as a "digital marketing agency".
A company listing site, merely giving facts such as the number of employees, the city in which the company is based, year of foundation of the business, etc.
... another link to the same web page as the last one...
... and yet another link to the same page again.
No mention of MartianCraft. The website calls itself a "business media brand", whatever that means.
A page with a significant mentions of Rob Rhyne, cofounder of the company, and some quotes from him. Twice it mentions in passing that he runs a business called MartianCraft; there is no other mention of it.
A dead link.
A review of the software "Briefs", which in the first sentence describes Briefs as "from MartianCraft", and makes no further mention of MartianCraft. JBW (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Micro Inc

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

This article was created by an employee and may have been later editor by one or two other employees. It reads as promotional and there are no cited sources other than the company itself. Unclear this company is notable; we have no article on the company that bought it. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spaceflight. Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find a few seemingly independent sources, but the majority are clearly either written by the company or (in in one case) a closely related company. I couldn't find anything on Google Books or Scholar.

A closer look at the creator's contributions and talk page shows that this user is clearly only on here to promote the company, and has a conflict on interest. The page itself seems to fit within the definition of WP:NOTPROMO. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also can't find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which can't be used to establish notability per WP: NCOMPANY.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 23 May 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records

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

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the record label has released many well-known songs (which Chubbies mentioned) and there is some important information currently in the article. Freedun (yippity yap) 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG and wp:sigcov. The signed artist do not make the label notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Banner talk 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the artists associated with Back Porch Records clearly pass the WP:NBASIC threshold, the label can't inherit that notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I was able to find a couple mentions: Aspen Times and Billboard but those are just mentions. Seems like Back Porch Records itself might best be served as mentions on Universal Music and/or Virgin Records pages? MertenMerten (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recent !votes for delete have surfaced (the NOTINHERITED concerns are misplaced, I think; there's no reason for us to cover a label but for the fact that it published notable artists), but why would we prefer a redlink over a merge to the parent label? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If this article were Merged, what would be the Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best merge target would be Narada Records, its parent label for most of its run, per [37] (note that this source calls it "a major force in roots and Americana music styles"). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles, Narada Records is a redirect. If you use one of the commonly used script, you'd see this because it's in a green font color. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its target, Narada Productions, would be the target then. In practice, people often call this label Narada Records. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I find WP:NOTINHERITED to be a major detriment to Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot limit the scope of knowledge in such a way and consider this project complete. This is a strong keep. Fireandflames2 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total lack of SIRS coverage. There are good reasons why companies need to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is redlinking this title preferable when there is a clear merge target? (Leaving aside that the label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label.) Chubbles (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narada Productions per above. Special:WhatLinksHere/Back_Porch_Records indicates that this should remain bluelinked, but there's a lack of sigcov for a keep. (It's possible that a future target could be an article for Back Porch Record's founder Ken Pedersen, though there aren't enough sources visible to establish GNG currently). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to United Airlines. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion de Mexico

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

The seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I don't even find the sources that would allow a merge. Maybe a redirect to the parent company but I do not find a source to verify that. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: It fails WP:NCORP, but should be redirected to United Airlines per WP:ATD. In 2005 and 2009, it was listed as a wholly-owned subsidiary ([38][39]) and the 2010 John Menzies annual report confirms its assets were acquired by Menzies Aviation. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menzies Aviation as per ADT as the new owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I don't know that we have a third-party source for that. We do have the John Menzies plc, Annual Report 2010, stating at page 99: "In 2009 Menzies Aviation acquired the trade and fixed assets of Kion, a ramp services business based at Mexico City Airport, for a consideration of £0.5m, including costs of £0.1m". BD2412 T 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (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 02:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Cellular

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different? Demondude182 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the current rule is supposed to be that we can't trust what companies have to say about themselves. This includes pres releases, and most of the regular business announcements that you see, which are mostly just copy-and-pasted press releases. It used to be less strict, and the articles on those other local cellular providers were probably created back then, and nobody has gotten around to reviewing if they need to be deleted since then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not ready of declaring your COI or connection with the company? Obviously there should be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Scribe, please do not be unnecessary confrontational in AFDs. They are tense already for content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, I never had that in mind. Well noted. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see some WP:ROUTINE local coverage but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator, preventing a Soft Deletion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer an assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the article creator but I don't see any way we can write a compliant article. To avioid losing their work, we do have the option of redirecting to, say, List of mobile virtual network operators in the United States, and retaining the content in the article history. We could also justify a potential SIZESPLIT for that list, perhaps by state or something, and I could see a short blurb on a split out "list of MVNOs in Michigan" or "Mobile providers in Michigan" as potentially justifiable, in which case some of the content could be merged. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, I understand being empathetic for the creator. But it isn't any majority challenge for redirecting. Most editors including handful established editor has see their article deleted. Believe you me, this redirect you're leaning in will soon be turned again into an article and we will return here again. It's important we know when we can redirect a slightly notable article or not. It's kit the first time one will work in am article for years even and at the end of the fatal year, sees it at AFD

Ig we all should consider such empathy, hmmmmm...then, Wikipedia should never delete any article where the creator tells how they have suffered in creating that article. Maybe you can chill them up on their TP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I suggested redirect here because redirection to a list is a perfectly valid ATD. That there might be disruptive editing afterwards is not an argument against that any more than the page creator possibly recreating the page would be an argument against deletion (they're perfectly capable of doing that, they're autoconfirmed). The appropriate measures to deal with that would be page protection or blocks (though we wouldn't use those preemptively either). Redirects do not have to be notable or even encyclopedic or printworthy. We have over a million of {{R unprintworthy}} redirects, because redirects are cheap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No redirect here pls. Much of primary, and WP:ROUTINE. Doesn't meet much requirement for entry per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Such articles may not slightly meet notability at instant and redirecting will not save us that it isn't notable at all. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:15, 3 June 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Friday Media

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only reference I can find that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this (note 3, and it's an edge case for notability since it seems to come from VinePair's WP:TRADES coverage.). All other sources in this article, as well as WP:BEFORE sources offering significant coverage, are press releases or sponsored content once you click through, even the Yahoo Finance pieces. Other references on this page are to LinkedIn, the subject's own website or other primary/user-generated sources. One item of significant coverage in an independent, secondary, reliable source is not enough; we need multiple. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the Nom. We are nowhere near CORPDEPTH with the sources in the article or elsewhere. My searches find very little at all, and nothing useful. This fails WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to my check, I agree with the nominator.WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require multiple in-depth coverages, but I found only one in-depth coverage. Other sources are just press releases and promotional materials. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:38, 24 May 2024 (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. Despite the limited participation, this cannot be soft-deleted, as it qualifies under G5 as the creation of an indef-blocked sock. No prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing, if sources establishing notability can be found. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altair4 Multimedia

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "Altair4 Multimedia," "Altair 4 Multimedia," and "Altair Multimedia," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. GSS ^💬 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Archaeology, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, which is needed to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The subject fails both of these guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 24 May 2024 (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!} 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VINAStech

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

This article seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in IRS appears to be approximately zero. Being a brochure doesn't help here either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it does fail WP:NCORP lacks sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Records

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

Don't think this satisfies the notability guideline. The second source literally leads to the Billboard Pro home page, so it doesn't help at all. I can't check the first source because I'm currently at a school where the link is blocked, so someone should check that. My Google searches on Light Records yielded nothing useful. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and Companies. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination, which had malformed syntax that was transcluding Wikipedia:Notability and thus breaking {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Several possible merge targets here, including its founder, its co-venture partner, and its parent label. I suspect there is coverage of this label in Christian-interest magazines, though; a little digging by specialists might turn up more WP:ATD here. Chubbles (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's hard to overstate the impact of Light Records on Contemporary Christian Music. Absolutely one of the most important, influential labels in the genre. If you go to Google Books, and search "Billboard Light Records", then click on one of the issues and search "Light Records" at the "Search all issues" you'll find a plethora of coverage. Also significant coverage in "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" ISBN:9798216065562. (addendum: the Wikipedia Library is down for me, so I can't search JSTOR or Newspapers.com.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Billboard, and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relyon

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tanhasahu (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 16 May 2024 (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 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guzema Fine Jewelry

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

The article cites trade publications and a Forbes contributor article. Some of the sources are about the person for interviews. I think this article is promotional and we need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:NCORP. A G11 by a previous reviewer was declined so I will leave this for the community to decide. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Ukraine. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good reliable sources and significant coverage in Elle, Vogue and local magazines and news papers. Added some sources --Assirian cat (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue: The First Lady of Ukraine Dressed With Pride to Meet President Biden passing mention].

Elle Elle Style Awards 2017: winners and party passing mention

We have a few routine announcements and interviews or interest articles about the Ukrainian owner.like this and articles about the founder but I do not think we get to the kind of RS needed for a notable company.

V$ Bloggy looking site with no editorial overbite that I can see.

I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP, nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Forbes article is by a contributor but I see no evidence that the article is not independent. The National Jeweler and the mentions in articles in the New York Times should suffice as English language sources. Since I cannot read the Ukrainian source I am taking on faith that those are substantial. Lamona (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Forbes contributor articles are red-lined on perennial reliable sources WP:FORBESCON. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the mentioned references I’m adding the following good sources with significant independent coverage. Here is a good long read in KyivPost [40], a Space Magazine publication representing the jewellery industry showed the company in depth here pages 61-63 [41]. Also, here is a success story in the local top newspaper and TV channel ICTV [42] and here is an in-depth coverage from the other local newspaper [43] while here is the in-depth coverage from a business-oriented and highly reliable in Ukraine AIN.ua news site [44]. Here is also a good coverage from Vogue in English [45]. Also I’ve found a significant coverage in Polish version of Glamour [46]. Also worth mentioning is Vogue Singapore [47] and L’officiel Mexico [48] --Riva Pola97 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:24, 24 May 2024 (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. In addition, the topic of this article is the company - references that focus on a product (reviews, mentions, etc) or interview a company exec (e.g. a puff profile) do not establish notability (unless the reference goes on to provide in-depth Independent Content about the company- which they never do). For example, this in Kyiv Post is a puff profile on the founder based entirely on information provided by the founder and containing no in-depth information on the company - fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in cn.ua mentions the company briefly in passing and contains no in-depth Independent Content about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or similarly this in Vogue, same reasons as above. If Valeryi is notable in her own right, then write an article about her, but these references do not establish notability of the company and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 28 May 2024 (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 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CannaCruz

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

Not sure there is anything particularly notable about this small business, although I recognise this is an interesting area of commercial activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local business and fails WP:NCOMPANY. Longhornsg (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Source coverage is trivial and fails WP:NCOMPANY. Bgv. (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (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!} 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stc Bahrain

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/VIVA Bahrain

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

Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 29 May 2024 (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 Dorothy Durgin. However I have not deleted it as it isn't clear why the content must go entirely. If I've misread, please ping me. Star Mississippi 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hart and Shepard

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Christianity, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (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!} 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures (company)

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted twice under the name AC Ventures as WP:ADMASQ and failing WP:NCORP, and the current version seems no different. In particular, all sources here were already considered and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a source assessment table: jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"AC Ventures reaches first close of a $250M fund for Southeast Asian startups". techcrunch.com. 14 September 2022.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund, see prev	✘ No
"AC Ventures' Journey With Adrian Li: Fueling Growth and Impact in Southeast Asia". AsiaTechDaily - Asia's Leading Tech and Startup Media Platform. 9 February 2024.	blog, see prev	blog, see prev		✘ No
Shu, Catherine (23 January 2024). "AC Ventures closes its new $210M Indonesia-focused fund". TechCrunch.	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev	about fund	✘ No
Rosendar, Yessar. "Indonesian VC Firm AC Ventures Closes $205 Million Fund, On The Hunt For Early Stage Startups". Forbes.	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		✘ No
Staff, TechNode Global (2024-01-23). "AC Ventures raises $210M to back tech-enabled businesses in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". TNGlobal. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210 million for fifth investment fund". The Business Times. 2024-01-23. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
Mulia, Khamila (2021-12-01). "Indonesia's AC Ventures closes third fund at USD 205 million". KrASIA. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	see prev	? see prev		✘ No
"AC Ventures launches advisor community to help startups achieve operational excellence from day one". Asia Food Journal. 2023-02-21. Retrieved 2024-05-15.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
"Indonesia's AC Ventures said to have closed fifth fund at around $200m". DealStreetAsia.	see prev	? no discussion	? paywall	✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210mil to back founders in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". Digital News Asia. 28 January 2024.	press release	? no discussion		✘ No
"AC Ventures' Pandu Sjahrir on Asean's Economic Resilience". www.bloomberg.com.	see prev	~ see prev		✘ No
"Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". www.techinasia.com.	see prev	? see prev	about report	✘ No
Yong, Yimie (25 May 2023). "Tech sector may be in 'funding winter' but AC Ventures sees opportunities in EV, circular economy & sustainable agriculture, says Managing Partner [Q&A]". TNGlobal.	press release aggregator, see prev	press release aggregator, see prev		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Indonesia, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the history here should be enough TBH, but I can't find anything on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBX Music

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

An article for a non-notable record label that was created by the owner of the record label himself. Not only is this article a clear WP:COI, but is a total WP:GNG failure as well. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the more important indie labels per WP:MUSIC; has no notable artists. Chubbles (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find sufficient sources for this to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG. Every reference listed is primary and unreliable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from the apparent lack of notability, I am concerned about a potential WP:PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 18:07, 22 May 2024 (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!} 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

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

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, Medicine, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (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, 22 May 2024 (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⁺⁺ 12:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Amazon (company). I'm just going to assume the participants don't have that gadget installed and meant the redirect target. Feel free to merge to a different target instead though, since any editorial decisions made afterwards are no longer AfD's problem. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amazon Inc.: per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FightBrightTigh: Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect. This should show up for you as a different colored font. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, references unable to establish independent notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff

AfDs for this article:

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

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Companies, and Nebraska. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [49], [50]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic

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

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [51] in particular gives details on them. Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [52] and [53]. Scientific testing on some of their products [54]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added. But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry.--Assirian cat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article. [55] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the citeunseen script, this page has 11 reliable sources, but all of them are trivial, especially routine coverage, as Alpha3031 has rightly noticed. If there are any three reliable sources, which satisfies ORGCRIT, there's a possibility of keeping it; otherwise, it's a straight-forward delete. Charlie (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any reference that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 11 June 2024 (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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Software. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:

Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.

The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaghrebiFalafel, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. You mentioned three sources. The MSN article is about a singer using the app - the article mentions the company in passing and does not provide any in-depth Independent Content about the company - fails CORPDEPTH. The Vanity Fair article is a "puff profile" on the founder and relies entirely on an interview. All the information is provided by the founder and has no Independent Content. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally the Avenue article has zero in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Are there any other sources you believe meets NCORP? If not, perhaps you might reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are: Larazon El Correo. They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future.~~ I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hypelist is definitely notable and has quite a few users. It's widely used by now and many other applications with similar notability levels are also on Wikipedia. Redcrablegs (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of people an app does guarantee notability. That's also a weasle statement: how many people are quite a few and who is providing these numbers? ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came back here to see what happened since my first comment. I noticed that the vote by Okmrman was deleted and they've now been blocked for being a sock puppet. On April 30 there was a comment on his talk page regarding spurious tagging of pages for speedy deletion. That was on April 30. This article was nominated for speedy deletion by a somewhat dormant account on May 9. The speedy was contested and 9 hours after this was nominated for deletion the sockpuppet voted here. Not that this affects the vote here one way or another. Sock puppet or not, doesn't impact whether a subject is notable or not, but the powers that be may wish to cast the Okmrman sock puppet net wider and investigate the editor who nominated this article for deletion. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @Yamla Looking at this some more, I'm now convinced that Teemu.cod and Okmrman are one and the same. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, they were blocked for disruptive editing and their other account was the puppet (they're the master). It is a little weird, has AfD always been this much of a sockfest? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It is peculiar. Then again, longer one spends here, harder it is to get shocked. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teemu.cod is Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People here saying the *company* is notable and then talking about the product are missing the point of establishing the notability of the *company*. None of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think one does, can you please post a link here and point out which page/para meets NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypelist's lead says "Hypelist is a mobile social application." The article is about the product (the app), not the company that launched the app. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertorial tone, and little or no depth to the coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. Can't believe this is still going. Not sure what's happening with AFD but this is a weird one. Nominated for deletion by editor who comes out of dormancy to nominate it and then hasn't edited since. Some editor who votes delete is blocked for going on a voting rampage. And then yesterday the discussion is closed not once, but twice by editors who are sock puppets?!?! Still this has nothing to do the merits of the page. Given that its been relisted twice and still no consensus, I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. It satsifies WP:GNG with the non English coverage and there is probably more non English coverage that can be translated and added. If it stays, Ill look for some and add it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now closed a third time by some rogue editor! It's not just this article. It's also others that are up for deletion. Anyone have any idea what is going on and why? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's an AFD closing LTA. Just revert, WP:DENY and move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 Wow! That's so bizarre. Why do they do it? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "'Hypelist', el nuevo proyecto del exitoso emprendedor español que triunfa en EE UU" ['Hypelist', the new project of the successful Spanish entrepreneur who triumphs in the US]. El Correo (in Spanish). 2024-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "For the second time, the young entrepreneur has managed to cover another need of social media consumers in time. His new app, 'Hypelist', was launched a few months ago and aims to help people share recommendations for activities, products or places they are passionate about. The app innovates by leaving the framework of aesthetics and superficiality that so characterises content on today's networks, something that places this second project at an extreme opposite to 'Unfold', focused precisely on the visual. ... 'Hypelist' allows you to collect all the recommendations in a personalized space for when they are going to be missed. In this way, it has been presented as an application not for entertainment, something that already abounds, but for self-realisation and growth that pushes people to fulfill all their plans. ... This time the launch of the project has been accompanied by the 'Hypelist Session', events organised to promote the use of the new app and full of 'influencers' eager to share their recommendations through this new channel."
2. Martin, Ruth (2024-03-26). "Esta es la Nueva App Que Usan Los Viajeros Expertos. Hypelist amenaza competir con Instagram y es perfecta para los que no pueden vivir sin las listas de favoritos" [This Is the New App That Expert Travelers Use. Hypelist threatens to compete with Instagram and is perfect for those who cannot live without favorites lists]. Grazia (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "Are you one of those who always makes lists for everything? Are you one of those who miss the guides that Instagram has made disappear and where you had your favorites saved? Then this new App is for you because with it you can organize, share and connect your best recommendations. It is called Hypelist and was created by a Spanish entrepreneur, Alfonso Cobo, who is not new to the world of entrepreneurship and technology. But not only can you create lists to save all your favorites, but you can also discover everything your favorite creators are obsessed with. Hypelist is the place where users share their true interests: the quirks that make them who they are; what truly obsesses and excites them"
3. Pujalví, Camila (2024-02-07). "Hypelist: la aplicación para compartir recomendaciones que necesitas en tu móvil" [Hypelist: the application to share recommendations that you need on your mobile]. La Razón (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "In the blink of an eye, Hypelist has gone from a simple app to a cultural phenomenon. Its creator, Alfonso Cobo, recognised for his previous hits like Unfold, has once again surprised the market with what promises to be the hit of the year 2024. But his ambition goes far beyond conventional. Following the wild launch of the app, Cobo has decided to expand its reach and create an entire universe around Hypelist. Hypelist stands out as a platform to organize, share and connect the best recommendations. Aiming to appeal to a younger audience, Cobo has collaborated with talented singer Cara Hart to release a single titled "Hypelist.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hypelist 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) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, Cunard I don't think Grazia can be considered an RS for anything other than uncontroversial self descriptions, certainly not for establishing notability. I mean, on their about page, which is very conveniently written in English, where most publications normally put how they're totally very well edited and all that, they instead put:

Our award-winning team prides ourselves on working with partners to create interesting, unexpected and unique experiences. Our collaborations are designed to deliver incremental value to our partners’ businesses. GRAZIA has a wide range of solutions to suit almost any kind of marketing and media mix. We offer branded content, video, integration into editorial franchises, innovative high impact ad units and local events.

... Yeah. I'll look at the other ones in a couple of minutes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe La Razón meets ORGDEPTH. I'm less sure about El Correo, but like risbel I am more concerned about ORGIND in their case (though El Correo might be better than risbel RS-wise generally). While I can't find anything other than the January press release, which those two articles seem to have additional content to (about the launch event, etc) they still read like content taken (perhaps paraphrased) from press kits rather than organic, intellectually independent coverage. Would rather kick it to RSN, though would not terribly object to this actually being closed as no consensus either. I would expect to renominate this (after some time of course) if that happens though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'm a bit concerned about is the language. It is clear that they are trying to sell Hypelist. It honestly sounds like a pitch to investors more specifically, they establish the credibility of the creator, describe demographics that it was made to appeal to, and describe the problem it is trying to solve. These are all pretty reasonable, but at the same time, the language is overly positive. Hart isn't just a singer, she's a talented singer. In Grazia, they describe the creator as well-trained, but they don't give any information in the quote. There are a lot more situations but their easy enough to parse through where I dont think I need to go over it more. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:45, 6 June 2024 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 20 May 2024 (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⁺⁺ 17:18, 27 May 2024 (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 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Largely a support studio rather than a primary one more likely to get coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 22 May 2024 (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. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P80 Air

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

Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this in NPP and debated taking it to AfD myself. Agree fully with the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Not necessarily promotional but does not satisfy WP:NCORP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not WP:TOOSOON if there are already independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject, and Thai business news media have been doing so with their own analyses of the family's business structure since 2022.[56][57][58][59] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources meets WP:SIRS
1. promotional from MarketingOops.com
2. name mention, no SIGCOV
3. Youtube promo video
4. Promo about founder, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
// Timothy :: talk 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ.
Marketingoops is an online magazine covering brands and advertising; the content in their articles is their original analysis. They do carry PR pieces, which are tagged "PR News" at the top, like these. The above piece is not one of them.

The Manager 360° business magazine article is about the airline business landscape, focusing on two emerging airlines—Really Cool Airlines and P80 Air—plus the established Bangkok Airways. So the subject is the focus of a third of the article, not a mere name mention.

The YouTube video is a news scoop by the online arm of Thansettakij, a major business newspaper, discussing how the airline fits into owners' businesses properties, and its announced business plans. It is not a promo video created by the subject.

The Thansettakij article has four paragraphs discussing the airline. Granted, it's not the main focus of the article, which is about the owners and their business group.
--Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, not yet independently covered or fully launched airlines. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This user was blocked a few hours ago with this rationale: "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry". Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Paul 012 (talk · contribs), whose detailed analysis shows that P80 Air meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the national newspaper Manager Daily, the major business newspaper Thansettakij [th], and the magazine Marketing Oops!. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with the statement below that these sources contain only "Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles". While there are quotes from company officials, these sources also contain original independent analysis about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Plenty of SIGCOV is likely to surface once the airline starts operating, which is expected within the six month draft lifespan. Nothing gained from deleting now and recreating a couple of months from now. @TimothyBlue: does this sound reasonable? Owen× ☎ 13:21, 26 May 2024 (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!} 07:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [60] [61], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a ~~weakest keep~~. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 23 May 2024 (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!} 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 2024 (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. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 2024 (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. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([62][63][64][65]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[66] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

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.

Companies proposed deletions

[1] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]