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 redirect‎ to Fernando Alonso. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimoa

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

Nominated as WP:SIGCOV are virtually non-existent bar store pages, thus failing WP:NCORP. Sources consists of WP:PRIMARY (website and social media sites). Other third party sources center itself on Signor Alonso. WP:ATD will be a redirect into Fernando Alonso. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fernando Alonso as per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 6 August 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!} 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorktel

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

Lack of notability established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable? BarnyardWill (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please inform me as to why this is being flagged for deletion? The page is written from an neutral point of view BarnyardWill (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is stated under the article name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:COMPANY. The only non-routine coverage is no. 8, but that newsletter article seems rather promotional and not really genuine. (The last sentence is "Contact a Yorktel Microsoft Specialist today at LearnMore@yorktel.com.") Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 11 August 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× ☎ 18:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Sports

AfDs for this article:

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

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. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and Nigeria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another case of a deceptively written article. I could not find any credible claim of importance. Notability, again, is not something that you inherit. Overall, fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per rationale by HIGHKING. Best, Reading Beans 17:05, 1 August 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, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug

AfDs for this article:

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

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. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company (interviews), there is no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Nigeria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, this is all about inherited notability and that does not work. Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: INHERITED and GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:56, 8 August 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) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen metabolism tracker

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

Only routine and occasional (press-releases style) media coverage with no NCORP reliable sources. TealBass (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry. Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I can find lots of routine product reviews, but there are a couple of in-depth sources on the product: [1], [2], as well as one small research study: [3]. Any product claiming to "hack your metabolism" pushes my bullshit needle into the red, but there does seem to be some coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not opposed to keeping the article based on Outside and Slate, and I agree that perhaps a procedural keep is the best option here (the nomination seems... a little suspicious to be honest) but I do feel the need to point of that the BrandBlend section of Jerusalem Post is pretty much just advertising WeirdNAnnoyed. It's only blatantly obvious for the ones that are marked "PR" or "In collaboration with <brand>" or "Walla!", but while it's easier to miss the for the rest I would heavily caution against using similar articles as RS unless there is no other choice. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified, now and before, and also procedural keep as this article has just been kept. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 27 July 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 Campania#Transport. Editors can merge content if they wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Campania

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

Unfortunately, I cannot find reliable sources per NCORP guideline. TealBass (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage to warrant an independent page. At best, it can be merged to [4] Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other thoughts on a potential merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trolleybuses_in_Avellino#Second_system could also work but I think Campania#Transport is better because of UnicoCampania. IgelRM (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campania#Transport as per WP:ATD, I agree sourcing does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Campania#Transport. In full agreement with HighKing. gidonb (talk) 21:38, 6 August 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 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordfarm

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference is the company website and the other one seems more like a listing in Poets and Writers which is behind a paywall. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability and significant coverage requirements. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:26, 28 July 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⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. The article is somewhat misleading, because some of the blue links to authors are not notable themselves. In several cases, there are red links. Is this a “walled garden”? Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 August 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. Most of the Keep views relied on the popularity of the organization's data products, which as the others pointed out, does not lend to the notability of the organization itself. Some did a WP:VAGUEWAVE towards GNG, but those who actually reviewed the sources critically found them all to be primary or offering no significant coverage. I also have good reason to believe MichaelDhaenens is Mr. Michaël Dhaenens, the organization's Head of IT, Data & Delivery, tainting his views here with COI. All this leaves us with a rough, P&G-based consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 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 sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [5], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asked by the admin a few comments above to review sources: the ECB is a government body, usually considered a primary source, then we have the company's own website, which is also primary... The only decent sourcing in the article is Source 2, where a peer-reviewed journal uses data from the company to analyze things (which is fine I suppose, it's not directly about the company however). None of the sources presented are helpful and most aren't even useful for the various reasons listed in this comment. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to comment on the remainder of the sources given above: a trade register and linkedin, neither of which are acceptable for proving notability. I'm afraid none of the new sources presented can be helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GCD (which isn't a company btw, it's an organisation with member banks) is definitely notable — it represents 50+ of the world’s biggest banks and is a key player in credit risk benchmarking. Their data and reports are widely used in academic studies, industry reports, and by regulators, showing they have a real impact on the financial sector. As previous commenters have set out, and as can be see from the 10 and half pages of google scholar results of papers talking about their database (one of the primary functions of GCD), there are plenty of reliable sources on GCD, easily meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hentheden (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An organisation still falls under GNG/WP:NCORP criteria which requires in-depth content including "independent content" *about* the *organisation*. Establishing notability according to the criteria isn't simply about getting mentions in "reliable sources" or showing the number of Google Hits or baldly saying that in your opinion is it definitely notable. We require particular types of sources which have a specific type of content *about the organisation*. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 19 August 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) 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustan Society

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

I can find no evidence that this 'society' (an incorporated company) meets Wikipedia notability criteria. The article is pure advertising. According to its own website [6], it offers 'services' such as 'Recognition of Noble Titles', 'Recognition of membership in Orders of Chivalry' etc, but fails to demonstrate that such 'recognition' has any value whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's title weirdo stuff and it's being used to prop up similar orgs that should be deleted for lacking notability and credibility like the American_Heraldry_Society(old successful AfD), Royal Order of the Engabu, Royal Order of the Omujwaara Kondo and Patriarchal Order of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an internet based business for fantasists who buy dubious honours that lacks both notability and credibility. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but feel the need to stress that the page has zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many self-sourced, self-important nobilitycruft articles with no underlying notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 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!} 05:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciberbit

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

Written like an advertisement and fails WP:NCORP with a lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Software, and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is known for its cooperation with Microsoft and its influence on the IT industry in the country. --Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no evidence it passes WP:NCORP, which is a requirement for a standalone page, a vague claim it is influential is not enough. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Known for influence in the country, with no coverage about it? Can you provide any articles about this influence? Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 31 July 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⁺⁺ 11:42, 31 July 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, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally no coverage other than their website found. Working with Microsoft in this case means publishing games on their platform, which isn't notable. They make software, but don't describe what it is or why it's notable, further hindering our efforts to prove notability. I can't find anything about this commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability anywhere. I'm not even sure if it still exists. Looks like a relic from the past when notability standards were much less strict. C F A 💬 01:56, 1 August 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!} 05:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the only salvageable information is related to the founder, since sources related to Wild & Bare are trivial/daily news with no lasting impact. Maybe an article could be created on Jean Alberti and the content here merged and redirected. Recon rabbit 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 31 July 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 of the company. As it stands, the article reads like a promotional leaflet and as mentioned above, most of the content concerns the "founder", not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 31 July 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!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio Group

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly PR and the company website also draws a blank. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 3:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sources from PR campaigns and searches did not yield any useful result that could sustain the page. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:41, 30 July 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!} 03:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durian Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources here and what I find in a WP:BEFORE are unreliable and not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional article with 2 sources clearly promoting the opening of stores in new locations and it's Furniture & Decor. It does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:59, 30 July 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 Viacom18#Owned channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "only Gujarati general entertainment channel in the market", as says a bylined article in the TOI. Also see: https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/55161_viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-regional-cluster-revenue-grew-by-22-sudhanshu-vats ; https://www.agencyreporter.com/viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-2/ or Books : Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives (2021); Indian Silver Screen (2021), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Colors TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels is better. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels. Poor sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viacom18: Per RR. Doesn't validate a standalone article for the channel since I couldn't find any sources establishing GNG The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 31 July 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!} 23:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palamon Capital Partners

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

nonnoitable private equity firm - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable corporation with no sources except that they bought another company. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every business. I do complement the article's author, however. They did a wonderful job in formatting. Bluefist^talk 02:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Most holding companies are not automatically notable because of their assets; see WP:NCORP and WP:NOTINHERITED. If information about why it’s notable is added, then it would be notable. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the notability is not inhereited from the companies it has purchased or taken stakes in. However, I do see coverage from the Financial Times that seems to have a bit of depth into how the firm operates and goes beyond merely reporting transactions. I am also seeing a metric ton of coverage from The Wall Street Journal about this firm and its activities, though much of it is transaction reporting. My hunch is that this firm is probably notable, but it's a bit hard for me to prove until I have more time to do a source dive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You may request to WP:DRAFTIFY of WP:USERFY it and work at your pace if you have an interest. - Altenmann >talk 04:17, 30 July 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, the sourcing to date all relies entirely on information provided by the company therefore there no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 30 July 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!} 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Conglomerate

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

Article created as WP:NPOVFACT violation to disparage a WP:BLP [7]. Looks multiple unconnected companies listed under the same umbrella tied together to create an elaborate WP:HOAX and many sections unrelated to company. For actual company, WP:RECENT focus on a single event from the 5 years back, see talk page for details. Previous points removed, I believe remaining actual subject of article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Hence, recommend for deletion.Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Finance, Companies, Education, Sports, India, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been editing related articles from many months and I agree with above arguments made. This article’s creation seems a clear [WP:NPOVFACT], there are several unrelated sections and content in the article, minus which it doesn’t meet [WP:NOTABILITY] Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does look like article scope is bloated, then per WP:SBST, seems an otherwise minor organization that has received news coverage for only 1 event. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The US website reference link provided seems like an unrelated organization. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned on the talk page, this article lacks proper referencing. It cites several irrelevant sources that do not mention the company. The article talks about two different companies: one based in Nebraska, USA, and another in Dubai, but there is insufficient evidence linking either to Kalki Bhagwan, his son NKV Krishna, or daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna. Additionally, some sections of the article are unrelated to the company. Notably, all sources referring to the company are from 2019, and there is no relevant information available about the company beyond that period.Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 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 Jon Radoff. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beamable

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

Most if not all articles about Disruptor Beam and Beamable are simple announcements that fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The article itself appears to fail WP:NCORP without significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Radoff per WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Radoff per WP:ATD - none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jon Radoff as a viable ATD per HighKing. Sal2100 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 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!} 05:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeka

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written very specifically, so much so that I suspect a COI. I’m not voting one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 30 July 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, sourcing in the article all relies on announcement and none contain in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 31 July 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× ☎ 13:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPPD

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

A draft that has not been updated for a long time. Not meet notability RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This could have probably have been nominated as a speedy WP:A7 (~300 stations is really not a WP:CCOS given that Turkey has 13000+ petrol stations), or a WP:PROD on the grounds of not meeting WP:ORGCRIT if not. I can't see a list to redirect to as an ATD. Note: This is ""Türkiye Petrolleri" in Turkish, and there are some recent stories given that it has just been acquired by a holding company[8] but that's WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ORGTRIV. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:10, 29 July 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 List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYDW

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

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing or inclusion in lists/directories) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Philippines. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu This is the only reasonable outcome right now. There are a lot of obvious correlates that to me suggest the sourcing to make this a reasonable article should exist somewhere—the station is more than 35 years old in one of the country's ten largest cities. This is not either a new station or a small-market station, both of which will struggle to generate sufficient coverage. But I do not know if the sourcing to improve this page exists online.
I am going to use this opportunity to speak directly to the editors who mainly work on Philippine TV and radio pages.
Read the room and start shoring up the articles that need substantial, independent references to demonstrate passing the GNG, not creating new ones.
The creation of new pages and drafts in Philippine radio has continued apace. Pages like DYWC-AM are not acceptable as new pages in 2024. The references need to be more than passing mentions, able to sustain significant material for the article.
Years ago, our practice was that most standalone stations merited articles. That has changed with the 2021 RfC that ratified the GNG as the standard in this field. I am slowly working on creating the conditions (namely list coverage and quality) to cull hundreds of Mexican station pages I created last decade for the same reason; many stations are old enough to have coverage, but newspaper availability is poor, and the pages are stubby. This may be the correct approach in the Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu following Sammi Brie's rationale - can you point me to the RfC you mention, I would have thought that WP:NCORP applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 31 July 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!} 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 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⁺⁺ 12:01, 29 July 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!} 07:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Karts

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link is their company website. The company seems to have supported many famous race drivers, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the articles speak about the racers and there is no significant coverage on the company itself. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Exceedingly poor quality article. This could easily have been G11ed. I see no indication of significant coverage and no real claim of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by one Jameswright2004 who had a particularly strong interest in the subject, I'm sure of a purely impersonal nature. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly sourced article, and I couldn't find any third party sources reporting on it at all. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing and cannot find anything online that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to rely on inherited notability, none of the sourcing meets the criteria to satisfy the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 28 July 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!} 07:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwell

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

Notability not indicated. Sources are paid or International Business Times (canceled on Wikipedia). Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article are lacking. Webrazzi sources read very much promotional, and there isn't anything satisfying WP:ORGIND in English sources. The Milliyet source (archive link) is just not much about the company. A Google search results in no other significant sources such as other articles or books, no results on DergiPark either. Fails WP:NCORP. Styyx (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional content. Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most of the references seem like paid PR articles failing to satisy WP:INDEPENDENT. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. The article content and its sources are mostly promotional. Other sources found online are mostly promotional content. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 29 July 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 Fenerbahçe S.K.. ✗plicit 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fenercell

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

Notability is not found; there are also no reliable sources Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is only a redirect in the Turkish Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K. as per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only the first 2 sentences are about Fenercell; the remainder is about Avea (now part of Türk Telekom) and a broad discussion about mobile networks in Türkiye. In that state, it would have been better titled as Avea. Or reduced to a 2 sentence stub on Fenercell, which would sit with the redirect on the tr.wiki article. Regarding the "Fenercell" branding, that uses other providers such as A1 Telekom Austria Group elsewhere [9]. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fenerbahçe S.K. since its standalone notability is unclear per WP:GNG. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge was to be done, looking at the target article, I think it would best be accomplished by (a) retitling the Fenerbahçe_S.K.#Fenerium section to Licensing and marketing, then (b) appending a short text along the lines of "Fenercell is a mobile network brand operated in conjunction with telephony providers.", but this would need to be supported by a reliable reference independent of the club and its partner providers. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: No evidence found to demonstrate that this particular fans' brand is notable. As I said above, the article text has very little about Fenercell so I don't see much to preserve under an ATD redirect and would prefer robust sourcing if text was to be added to the Fenerbahçe article but a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 20 August 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!} 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kütahya Porselen

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

Not meeting GNG per Ncorp/Norg. I did WP Before but it did not help me much. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all known WP:GNG with wide deficits. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 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!} 23:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Airways

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

Looked through Turkish media and not publicly available archives but I didn’t find any sufficient sources for indicating the airways’ notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thing that is missing from the article and something that I did not expect to see at all today is that this tiny airline apparently went to the European Court of Human Rights with the state of Ireland? It has its own article on here, and on a quick glance seems to satisfy notability. Should this AfD result in delete, some content can be merged into that article for some background information. Styyx (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment provides important information about a now-defunct airline that played a role in Turkey's aviation. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't just make commcnts but offer your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you want a Merge, what target article? Or should this article be Kept or Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP - no WP:SIGCOV of the airline in independent reliable third-party sources that I could see from a look through the first ten pages of Google results. The airline cannot WP:INHERIT the notability of the ECHR case which anyway had its own article. Parties to ECHR cases - who can be private citizens - are not automatically notable. Feel free to ping me if more sources are found.

Regarding the assertion that articles about old airlines have "historical" interest, that is not for us to decide with no reference to anything off-Wiki. Instead the interest of historians has to be evidenced by references to articles and texts showing that the subject-matter is of "historical" importance. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 5 August 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!} 04:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prayz Network

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

Subject does not have the WP:CORPDEPTH needed for a standalone article. The only sources currently in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: All of the network's stations are in Wisconsin, and all but one of them (that lone exception being the acquisition of a former non-religious station) were built in the early 2010s — radio stations that new almost never get the significant coverage they would have gotten decades ago. A clear remnant of the "if there's FCC licenses involved, there's some level of notability" stance that was finally shut down by this 2021 RfC (a situation made worse if the network technically falls under the stricter NCORP than GNG). The redirect is only really to preserve this article's own redirects at WTPN, WWJC, and WEQS as {{R to list entry}}s; as "Prayz Network" itself (as opposed to the stations themselves) is not mentioned there, it may be more appropriate to only retarget those particular redirects and delete the article altogether (and to be clear: if it were not for those redirects, this would unambiguously be a delete). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. The consensus threshold for inclusion for radio station articles is much higher today than it was when I created the article in 2015, and I fully agree with Wcquidditch's assessment of the level of notability of the individual stations. Yet, as Wcquidditch also stated, the article's own redirects could be retargeted separate from "Prayz Network", which itself is not mentioned in "List of radio stations in Wisconsin". Moreover, the network holds a permit for a station in Minnesota, making the list article even less appropriate as a target.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Redirect and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis that it might get listed in both List of radio stations in Minnesota and List of radio stations in Wisconsin. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn’t have enough coverage from reliable sources and doesn’t show significant importance. Yakov-kobi (talk) 23:58, 31 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funbag Animation Studios

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

Not a single source was given, and I was unable to find a single source regarding this that was neither user-generated nor a mere mention, so very far from having enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Withdrawing as I appear to have grossly failed Wp:BEFORE. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Companies, and Canada. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even modifying the search to just "Funbag Animation" doesn't turn up much. This is the best I could find and its only passing mentions. Unless anybody finds something significantly better than that its a delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not having problems finding significant coverage, User:DanielRigal. National Post - ProQuest 329652135, Ottawa Citizen - ProQuest 240317878. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First link does not exist, second link is paywalled but refers (by the title) to a series whose article does not contain the work "funbag". — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the (rather obvious) typo in the first link, User:Alien333. I don't know what you mean by paywalled. Not only are they are both accessible with your Wikipedia library login, but WP:BEFORE in Section D.2 (WP:CONRED) says to make use of the Wikipedia Library. Which is an absolute must if editing in the area of Canadian subjects, given most of the nations major papers can be found there, but not in Google or even newspapers.com. So I believe this is a BEFORE failure. Also, the former, Funbag is mentioned 8 times. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I really messed up. Thanks for the wake-up call. Withdrawing nomination, for what it's worth. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found several articles. Here stuck a deal with UTV. Government of Nova Scotia reports. Sale of assets after bankruptcy here. Book 'Reading between the Borderlines' also mentions it. Other articles are also there. Changeworld1984 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All except the Government of Nova Scotia are passing mentions, and WP:GNG explicitly requires significant coverage, i.e. not mere mentions. The Nova Scotia one might just push it across the border to GNG, though. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have Funbag in the headline itself and deal with the studio. These are not passing mentions. And these are just examples that this company has been reported on before. Changeworld1984 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 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. Star Mississippi 11:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZipZoomfly

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

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale "Non-notable, defunct retailer. None of the current sources are actual coverage of the company in reliable sources, merely being things such as database listing or user generated content like reviews. Searching for sources under both the "ZipZoomfly" and "Googlegear" names did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources." An IP user contacted me on my Talk page requesting to contest the PROD with this rationale: "ZipZoomFly.com aka GoogleGear.com was an important part of early internet history and a popular place to shop before newegg was founded. The lawsuit between them and google.com (alphabet) was a noteworthy case of parody vs trademark. The page is worth keeping because their are lessons to be learned from it's downfall." I don't agree that reasoning is sufficient to address the sourcing issues that keep this company from passing the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but since the PROD was contested, I am moving it to AFD for discussion instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with IP. The suit with Google over the naming was notable at the time, and as a computer retailer, they were well and widely known during their heyday - for example, on Anandtech, they were listed in price comparisons against NewEgg, TigerDirect, and Buy.com.^[1] In the grander scheme of things, they were just an early online PC component retailer, but as a bit of early online history, they are modestly notable. I'd vote to keep it, but per notability guidelines I'm uncertain enough to say that we need more eyeballs on it to assess.

I've updated and replaced a number of of the sources, just to conform better w/policy and guidelines. Regrettably, I could find no mention of their demise from reliable sources; only many comments within PC-focused forums at the time, which of course are not considered reliable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. Although I sympathize with the IP's and anastrophe's desire to keep early internet history, this company isn't notable. BEFORE didn't show any RS. Of the current references:~~

1 is paywalled, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's a good reference.

2 is the Google suit, a primary document, fails RS

3, 4, 8, 9 are the company's own website, fails IS

5, 6 are user-generated reviews, fails RS

7 is simply a business listing, fails RS/SIGCOV

anastrophe's find is a listing of comparable products from different retailers

~~I see no sources that meet GNG or NORG. Even if reference #1 is acceptable, that's not enough to establish notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

All perfectly legitimate arguments, and sorry for the paywall, didn't realize at the time. The WSJ article is a good, in-depth look at the company, with the president of the company quoted several times, and their efforts to keep customers engaged in the face of growing competition detailed. Here's a 'gift' link to the article for review if interested.^[2]

But, a single article in a genuinely reliable sources isn't enough. The (lack of a) preponderance of evidence in reliable sources establishing notability is prima facie. No objection to deletion (with a wee tear in my eye, heh). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...And I'm not entirely certain of the propriety of sharing that 'gift' link here. By all means, let me know and I'll delete it if it's problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was really hoping to find some great sources because the early internet (in all its Comic Sans, under-construction-gif, clashing color glory) was a magical place and preserving as much history as possible is fantastic. Let the children see what we had to do to simply visit a website, and we shall not speak of the trials of downloads! If there had been enough sources I would have been an enthusiastic keep, but alas... StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage here [10] and the website is talked about here [11]. These and the Wall Street Journal should be just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks Oaktree, the internet is saved! Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have struck through my earlier delete rationale as Oaktree's finds push this over the notability bar for me. Good work Oaktree! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:41, 28 July 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!} 23:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinstellar

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

This law firm's page was created a decade ago, with no significant changes. The links used to cite it are now dead (aside from their own website), and none of them seem reliable to begin with. The only information on the article seems to be the company's formation and expansion. I tried searching for some more sources and came up empty. Niashervin (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Niashervin (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Central Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. The results of internet search are mainly directory listing and a couple of industry-related sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found one source from this legal news outlet, another from an investment news site, not sure if that is enough to salvage this article. Badbluebus (talk) 22:37, 28 July 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⁺⁺ 11:58, 29 July 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!} 23:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Seminars Institute

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

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Archaeology, Israel, and Palestine. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 July 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, certainly the sources in the article all rely on information provided by the company and/or their customers, therefore not "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 30 July 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. There's consensus that the article meets the General notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Nobody (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

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

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep: despite what @Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep per last sources brought up by Skynxnex. I'm not sure the whole Max World, Mac Life, and Micro World bunch is reliable, but with that Forbes article it adds up to enough for WP:GNG for me. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might have been a bit quick with the "promotional" and it's only about the two by Sarah Perez, I can't help but have doubts whens someone writes about a beautifully designed, deceptively simple, gorgeous new app with an attractive design that stand[s] out of the crowd and is working towards building out a smarter, more intelligent system. They do look a bit like PR pieces. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you reached the same conclusion after a more thorough review! gidonb (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some more reviews (many of these links are wikipedia library links, I'll try to provide enough context to show how relevant they are):

A Task Master to Beat All; Any.do is perfect for sailors who like to keep their boats organized by Donald A. McLenna in Sail, November 1, 2014. A five paragraph positive review from the perspective of a sailor. (I didn't find these articles easily but it mentions that "It won Apple’s 2012 'Intuitive Touch' Award, Android’s 'Best App' for 2012 and a nod in my 'Top 5 Apps for 2013' in the December 2013 issue of SAIL", as a sign of more continuing coverage.)
Any.do's Life-Planner Adds Another 4 Million Users, 3/11/2014, by a (former) Forbes staff member so probably reliable and contributing to notability?
Any.Do 3 Review: Don't like apple's reminders? You might like Any.Do, By: Loyola, Roman, Macworld - Digital Edition, Jun 2015. About six functional paragraphs ending with "The different list views make the free version of Any.do better at organizing your task list than Apple's Reminders. And the ability to create subtasks and add notes and attachments is handy. The premium version of Any.do has features that'll make you seriously consider using it instead of Reminders, but you have to be willing to pay for it on a regular basis."
Any.do by Joseph, Cliff. Mac Life, Oct 2019. Four-ish paragraph review starting with "The marketing blurb for Any.do is a bit intimidating, as it seems to be aimed at budding business tycoons and “results– driven teams”. But it turns out that the basic, free version is simply a rather nice app for making to–do lists.".
App Battle Any.do Vs Todoist, by: Leane's, Rob, Micro Mart, 2/25/2016.

there's more reviews/coverage about the same level as well, so I think definitely meets WP:GNG and our general guidelines for software. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skynxnex provided plenty of sources. Whizkin (talk) 22:01, 28 July 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!} 23:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Position

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

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners~~. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Internet, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the references are press-releases and unimportant awards ("top 100 places-to-work in the Portland area in 2016"). But [12], while not enough on its own, suggests there might be coverage. I agree with the nom that it is unclear whether any prose would be left in the article after cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Charlotte Observer story is coverage of a new location opening that would be excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question What or where is the "allegation" re: a relation to Roth? -- GreenC 03:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the coverage is excluded for notability under WP:ORGTRIV. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 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⁺⁺ 11:51, 29 July 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!} 22:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Hospital

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. 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. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously at AFD twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)} so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP as lacking direct detailing from multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 20:29, 11 August 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 UniCredit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Pekao Investments

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

Fails WP:NCORP Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Poland. Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is likely notable (pl wiki article is a bit better, states it is the largest investment fund in Poland) but both our and pl are lacking independent refs. Quick GS search suggests sources exist (ex. [13]) but I am not motivated to fix this - the company should hire a PAID editor for that. They certainly can afford this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable for its role and historical significance. Article needs to updated. According to this article, the firm has changed its name to Pekao TFI. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Changeworld1984 - can you point to any in-depth sources which write about the significance of its role in history? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far we still are lacking in independent sources that provide significant coverage Imcdc Contact 14:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unicredit, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing the notability of *this* company, the sourcing all appears to rely entirely on information provided/published by the company, fails WP:ORDGIND as not "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unicredit due to article's lack of viable sources to fulfill WP:NCORP. Though these may exist, I agree with the sentiment that this does not obligate us to keep or fix articles that don't have such. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:37, 25 July 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. I find the arguments of those arguing for Delete more persuasive, along with the source tables. Those advocating Keep have to present sources to back their view that sources exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Development

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the minimal sources for establishing notablity are present and company is operating in two countries and is behind the biggest buildings in Turkey (Istanbul Tower 205, Istanbul aquarium) etc.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't agree about the availability of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS -- can you share your WP:THREE best sources for other editors to evaluate? (Notability is not WP:INHERITED from buildings this company may have been involved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep lean towards keep per WP NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article). The company had various names throughout its history, and it was mentioned in Turkish newspapers with no digital copies. I will try to add what I can find. 78.177.93.54 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 78.177.93.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Mentions of the company are not sufficient, WP:NCORP mandates significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. The article was created by a blocked sock, and other substantial edits were mostly done by IPs. Aintabli (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added not digital good sourcing from Turkish media. It’s quite large construction company (having built Istanbul Tower 205). It seems to meet notability criteria. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirubii Olchoglu: The ConstructionNews URL you added to the article is dead and has never been archived by Wayback Machine, and constructionnews.com does not even seem like a website publishing articles. The book (curiously written by "J. Doe") doesn't seem to exist under this title, and the ISBN belongs to an edition of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Could you clarify this situation? Janhrach (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirubii Olchoglu Even if the Construction News article was accessible to us, it wouldn't count toward notability as a WP:TRADES publication. Regardless of its size or the projects it worked on, the company needs to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; notability isn't WP:INHERITED from projects it was involved in. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are kind of/minimum sufficient. The 100 years company is highly likely notable and has sources per NEXIST. It also should be rewritten to avoid any promo. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep !votes have asserted that minimal sources are present, but none have presented the sources they say meet the criteria. I have conducted the following source analysis and I do not see a single source that solidly passes the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS per WP:ORGCRIT. If there are more sources out there (and I didn't find any), "keep" !voters need to present them, not just assert they exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://biz.liga.net/all/all/press-release/turetskiy-developer-bosphorus-development-vyhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rynok-nedvijimosti	Press release	Self-published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://mind.ua/openmind/20234520-zakordonnij-dosvid-yak-tureckij-developer-osvoyue-ukrayinskij-rinok	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://archive.kyivpost.com/business-wire/new-international-development-sector-player-enters-ukraine.html	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://interfax.com.ua/news/interview/786357.html	As a WP:INTERVIEW, this is a primary source		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://globaldesignnews.com/renzo-pianos-istanbul-modern-is-inspired-by-the-bosphorus-waters-its-reflections-of-sunlight-and-its-locations-heritage/			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://forbes.ua/ru/company/bosphorus-development-yak-providniy-turetskiy-developer-vikhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rinok-nerukhomosti-20122021-3011			The source only includes a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Bosphorus Development / Босфорус Девелопмент	✘ No
https://emlakkulisi.com.tr/ece-turkiye-aqua-floryanin-kiralama-faaliyetlerini-ustlendi/372671	Apparent WP:TRADES publication		The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/haberleri/aqua-florya-avm			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://expatguideturkey.com/top-10-highest-buildings-in-turkey/	~	Blog	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230726120751/http://bunews.com.ua/interviews/item/leading-turkish-developer-enters-the-expanding-ukrainian-real-estate-market	~ An interview-based article	~ Possibly excluded as a WP:TRADES publication	~ The source discusses the subject in detail but mostly about a market entry, a subject excluded as SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV	~ Partial
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}}.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/gayrimenkulde-2016nin-yildizlari-40274467			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ekoyapidergisi.org/istanbul-tower-205-e-european-property-awards-dan-2-odul	~	~	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.aksam.com.tr/yasam/istanbul-tower-205e-european-property-awardsdan-2-odul/haber-773563			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.propertyturkey.com/news/istanbuls-second-tallest-building-sold-for-594-million-usd		WP:BLOG	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://thepage.ua/real-estate/tureckaya-kompaniya-ne-razglashaet-lokaciyu-svoih-zhk-v-centre-kieva-do-nachala-stroitelnyh-rabot			News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ No
https://emerging-europe.com/business/no-time-to-wait-ukraines-reconstruction-begins-now/	An interview-based article		A trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-release/910561.html			A single trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
http://stroyobzor.ua/ru/kiev/news-builders/start-prodazhu-kvartir-v-zhk-biznes-klasu-maxima-residence-na-pechersku	?	?	? Unable to access, blocked as a malicious website.	? Unknown
https://www.ukrhaber.com/blog/bir-turk-sirketi-ukrayna-emlak-piyasasina-giriyor-ilk-projesi-kievde-bir-konut-kompleksi/		Blog	News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if there is any editor response to the source analysis presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 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. Also, the "Business Ukraine" article marked as "partial" in the source assess table relies entirely on an interview with the founder with no in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 29 July 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. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 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. ~~Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article.~~ This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, ~~again begging the question was this article actually read~~. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the arguments given by User:HighKing which have convinced me that this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 31 July 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entry is sourced to primary or non-independent or unreliable sources. There is no significant coverage seen from a search for more sources. Best, Reading Beans 00:51, 28 July 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.

Companies proposed deletions

[1] ttps://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2689?cPage=4&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=

[2] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118772414008204352?st=gzpd9k9fxg7z69n&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[1]

[2]