Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagace

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Relatively new startup company. Only passing mention in sources. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- *this is not a new startup company. the previous article that was deleted had more citations. it has been a subject of various media all over the world for a long time now. a quick google search can show the same. the comments of sabiel are libelious and there are clear and valid citations. yes its a new company but its a valid encyclopedic content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source of information on this company is those articles that clearly when put together are a topic of encyclopedic content. not some random advertisements written on grounds that are dumbfounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- *the content about this article is related to an individual and the citations are valid for the content posted in the article. i dont understand how a new startup company cannot meet encyclopedic contentjane22 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no reliable 3rd party sources found for this company. Cotton2 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the links posted have reliable sources of information consistent with the content of the article. the source of this information is those articles. thats why its a topic in the first place. aren't forbes reliable? aren't business insider? these are provable links with information sufficient to have the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the links include news and publications from persons whose opinions are third party to warrant a valid source of information on the article. all those articles are not from one person. so saying no 3rd party sources doesnt make any sense at all.a company is run by people who sell opinions and provide information to third parties. and in this case third parties have verified the information by having information on the same in various links and news articles which they have published. how is that not 3rd party?jane22 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked the reference from Forbes, it's barely a mention of anything, but what's there is not about Zagace. Please review WP:RS to understand why these references do not make the grade as reliable detailed 3rd party references. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Cotton2 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~-the article has a statement Zagace, which has raised funding from local investors, is a cloud enterprise software that helps companies manage inventory such as accounting, payroll, stock management, marketing and many more all bundled in a simple and easy to use format called Zag apps. similar to what is on the article. this is written by a forbes staff by the name kerry dolan. and this is contained in the first paragraph after the first picture appearing on the page. forbes staff is a third party and credible source. The content of this article has the same exact wording. how is this not reliable? are you even reading this? Ierierie 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:jane22 for joining this discussion. All contributors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia! I am having trouble leaving a message on your talk page, could you be impersonating another user? That is quite difficult to do here, every entry is logged in a page history file. I can't find an entry by User:jane22 in this page's history, here Cotton2 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that was a typo . the messages are continuous and am the same person writing the response. Ierierie (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and optionally Redirect to Mubarak Muyika who appears to be marginally more notable. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:K.e.coffman for joining this discussion. The concern on the article was about whether the 3rd party references were reliable not whether the content is notable or not.According to WP:RS. The contents in this article are independent work whose citations and as an independent topic and qualify as different to warrant a different page. They may be sourced from articles where other persons are notable but because its a different topic, hence the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Quick online search produced enough sources to easily pass WP:GNG warranting existence of the page. Notification or concern should not be about deletion but other wikipedia article issues. users comments on page warrant other reasons of concern that can be solved without deletion as this is a credible independent topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)