Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Companies. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Companies|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Companies. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Companies deletion

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance Communications

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

This article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing remarkable about it to be on Wikipedia. The content highlights usual announcements about mergers and acquisitions which any other company of this clout would be doing. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A defunct operation which was acquired and merged into another business (which itself does not have an article so is not a Redirect target). I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements to indicate that it achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (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. Hut 8.5 22:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubrik

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

Start up with no actual notability. The Forbes reference is just an inclusion in "Next Billion-dollar Startups", which, in our terms, amounts to "might be notable someday" (the actual capitalization at present seems to be $71 million). The other references are either PR or just notices about funding. None of this is reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam: funding, aspirations, minor industry awards. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:CORPSPAM, fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 13 March 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endoca

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

This is a non-notable company. Most of the references do not even mention the company (they are about cannabis in general), and those that do name the company involve just passing mentions or are non-independent. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must not be deleted on the basis of notable resources. The resources on dopemagazine must be a good resource for stay article live. 43.239.68.170 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — 43.239.68.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, a suspected IP sock of Wikibaji, article creator, who commented again below.[reply]

The Dope Magazine article barely even mentions Endoca. If that reference is the best guage of Endoca's notability, then Endoca is clearly not notable. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few resources which seems trust-able Trustpilot, spandidos-publications, dr.dk, wholefoodsmagazine and supplementpolice Wikibaji 06:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) :Some citations (dr.dk, supplementpolice) are useful on Endoca article, it must be live on Wikipedia 14.192.210.245 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any cited sources that help to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The article looks somewhat promotional to me. I have no idea for the notability, but also have not heard of this company before. The cannabis industry is notable, with recent legal developments in the U.S. though. If we can find a reliable third-party source that itself is notable, which mentions how Endoca is a pioneer in the field, then perhaps the company merits an article. Its tone would still need to be adjusted to not read like an advertisement. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the comments above, I can't find anything more than trivial mentions in a news search. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment One of the things I noticed is that most of the references are in Dutch. I am curious, does Wikipedia permit the use of references that talk about content in a language apart from English? I know there are several Wikipedia pages in multiple languages, but is it necessary that a page in English have references that are written only in English? And does the same analogy apply to pages in other languages too?FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-English language sources are allowed in the English Wikipedia; see WP:NONENG. That said, if there are two sources of equal quality and relevance, and one is in English and the other not, the one in English should be cited in the English Wikipedia. I don't know what other language Wikipedias' policies are on the use of sources outside their languages; those policies may well vary from language to language. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Endoca ApS CVR-nr 32334865 CVRP-nr 1019145480 is a very small Danish company established i 2014 with 2-4 employees. The cited article from Danmarks Radio 25. FEB. 2014 [[1]] is very critical of the company and it seems everything in connection with the company is not in accordance with Danish law. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 20:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dyveldi, Can you please explain what Danish law is broken by the company? Do you have any valid point that explain the company is not notable to stay on Wikipedia. Wikibaji (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed answer. Reason for deletion is that it is a very small non notable Danish business. Wikipedia is not a business catalogue.

-- The article referred to is from 2014 and the company seems to have broken marketing regulations and questions were asked by Danish health authorities. As described in the article they needed to adjust their marketing and in addition comply with health regulations in Denmark. At the time it was not reported to the police. I have not followed up what happened to the case, but based experience from Norwegian similar cases they probably adjusted their marketing in accordance with the law and answered the questions asked. Changed their homepage, became more careful. Possibly also filed the correct applications for licenses which at the time was missing. Whether they in the end were served a fine I have not tried to find out. If so it has not necessarily been public and may not have been written about in the newspapers. The company is so small that it is not notable and it was not worth the work to try to find out what happened after the 2014 article. Their little skirmish with the law is definitely not enough to make them notable. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duhow Rubber

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

Unsourced article, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH Flat Out (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our edits must have crossed. I PRODed for the same reason a minute before the nomination. Non-notable company that fails GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling the company's Chinese name"东昊橡胶" results only 50 pages. None of them qualifies as a reliable source.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 16 March 2017 (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. @SwisterTwister: please address Northamerica1000's concerns regarding your statements about the article creator. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Fountains De-Stress Spa

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

Clear as a company-motivated and paid advertising which is instantly deleted by our long-held policies WP:What Wikipedia and WP:Paid, which take importance over any and all suggestive guidelines, another maintained foundation since day 1; all sources here, regardless of publication or name, are clear paid press, announcements, press releases, notices, etc., all which violate the simplest standards, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS, which still state anything by or for the company's own promotion is unacceptable. All found sources are also fitting the above profile, given it's mirrored consistency in self-served PR, such as this and and this. The users themselves boldly hid their own paid COI, something that WMF Legal itself states is an instant violation, given it's a blatant misuse of Wikipedia and its non-negotiable policies. WP:GNG itself has always been a suggestive guideline which itself begins with "Subjects may be presumed [not guaranteed] if independent coverage....". Our policy WP:Paid explicitly says users must not use Wikipedia as a business webhost as it's a legal policy, thus self-explanatory and, even if someone wanted to start an article, saving someone's paid advertising is not a option. Our policies against paid advertising have even been met with satisfaction by the WMF Foundation. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Where was this confirmed by a check user as "as a company-motivated and paid advertising".? The article's creator, Pritesh496 has not been blocked. Please provide more information to substantiate your claims. Thanks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below are a few sources from a cursory search. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - These are the same sources offered above in the search links but even if they weren't, they share the same mirrored consistency, take 1 for example, it's about the "Life story of Four Fountains" and what "their businesspeople have to say about it", that immediately violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it states coverage must be independent and not anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published, sources 2 and 3 share this ("Four Fountains focuses on affordability to woo customers" and "MUST TRY If your work-life is taking a toll on your health, then the Working Professionals Package is ideal for you. In this treatment, they give you a full body massage with sesame oil, working on the tense muscles of the back, neck, shoulder and foot, easing the aches and pains. COST Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500 DURATION 1 hour" (to quote WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT: Brief statements, announcements or pricing and costs) and that's without then mentioning all three articles share this consistency, that wouldn't even satisfy WP:GNG since it says coverage must be independent and not be supported by primary sources. Next, the author has highly visible signs of sharing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704 given the similar patterns except that the account was too old for CUing, something all too familiar to such overseas advertisers. Unless the article is actually improved without having to focus in what the company announced about itself, since it would be unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH, the main standard for companies here, there's nothing for what our policies classify as actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I think you should redact the statement in your nomination stating "CU-confirmed", because the article creator, Pritesh496, is not even mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704. Stating that this user has been CU-confirmed amounts to the casting of unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS. Please, seriously consider redacting this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are utterly worthless for notability -- checking the ones proposed by NAmerica, and reading them: t

The nature of the DNA article has been already dealt with by ST.

The Economic Times citation leads to a single paragraph of advertising. "Four Fountains Spa focuses on affordability to woo customers. Three years ago, three friends in Pune decided to give spas a fresh treatment and some essentials oil, scrubbing and waxing later, they came up with the idea of spas for the masses!"

The India Today articles is different. It's a combination article listing 5 spas, with a paragraph of straight PR from each of them.

It is not possible to select adequate references by just copying the hits on Google. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 9 March 2017 (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) GSS (talk|c|em) 17:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Artists Motion Pictures

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

The article does not indicate why the organisation is notable or significant. It reads like an advertisement. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a leading production studio in Tamil cinema - India's second highest profile film industry - who regularly collaborate with the industry's leading actors, directors and technicians (Vikram, Sivakarthikeyan, Dhanush) / (Gautham Menon, Selvaraghavan) / (A. R. Rahman, Harris Jayaraj) etc. I've added some extra sources too. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It satisfies WP:ORG. The subject has sufficient references for establishing notability. As per the claim of notion, the nominator should have taken appropriate steps or tag as {{advert}} before listing here as an advertisement. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 08:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A top production house which produced a National Award winning film. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:47, 10 March 2017 (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. No prejudice towards redirection. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eduwamp

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

Almost entirely empty, poorly written, the only source links to the Eduwamp's website, and seems to be highly promotional Terrariola (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, to Institute of Engineering and Technology, DAVV#Start-ups - I was in the process of redirecting this article to the target when I noticed this AfD had appeared. There's no reason for a full discussion process about this. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no useful content so preserving the history is not needed. Optionally redirect name only as suggested, at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:14, 11 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colemine Records

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

All of the references given in this article lack independence from the subject. A quick Internet search only turned up hits like YouTube videos and social networking site (Facebook, twitter, etc.). I did not find non-trivial evidence of notability in reliable, independent, verifiable, secondary sources. KDS4444 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Sourced to primary sources and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable garage "label" "producing" no one anyone ever heard of beyond their mothers. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:20, 14 March 2017 (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. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Inflatables

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some mentions in the BBC, but nothing in-depth about the company that could establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW - Would ask the nomination be withdrawn. Despite the depth of coverage not being substantial, there are multiple independent sources which would allow this meet WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY as written, WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company has coverage in publications around the world. Meets WP:ORGCRITE and WP:AUD. Searching turns up a large number of sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Mostly about it products, some about company management. Spending more time could easily turn up more. Gab4gab (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Spending more time" makes the assumption that I did not spend time to find the sources that you did. In fact, I saw each reference you listed above. If you note view the nomination again, you will see that it is not about being sources, but the depth of those sources. Most of what you presented are advertisements and the rest are brief mentions. We need more than brief mentions that verify the existence in order to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources out there that establish notability. Article is poor though. I reviewed every one of the links posted by Gab4gab above. It looks like the links were the result of a search for "Avon Inflatables". Some of the sources listed fail the criteria (an Ad!) but, that said, a number that meet the criteria such as the BBC news link and the multiple magazine articles. Thank you for putting in the work. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did see these in fact, but they are all brief mentions and nothing that provides any details other than their existence. Maybe I am not seeing the same thing. Are you saying all of the ones you provided above meet WP:SIGCOV? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article in its current state does not pass GNG. There are very little sources cited. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & more sources The reason for deletion given was notability. Notability is determined by existing sources, not the current state of the article. The company produced products for consumer, comercial and miltary uses. There is a depth of coverage making it possible to write more than the brief stub that exists today. There are sources with more than brief mentions. The BBC article in particular is rather lengthy. Brief mentions should not be ignored. Articles written about inflatable boats during this company's years of production will frequently mention Avon Inflatables. That is an indication of notability. I suppose there will be differing views regarding whether a source is an ad. For example this [14] Great Gear article discusses inflatables in general and then goes into details about design distinctions of several competing brands including Avon. Doesn't look like an ad to me but I understand that opinions may differ. When I say that “searching turns up a large number of sources... spending more time could easily turn up more” I mean that by spending more time I could easily turn up more. Here are more sources:

This book contains a great deal of material on Avon including contributions to improved design features over the years. This book has a paragraph and more on Avon. This Crusing World has articles on RIBs (Rigid Inflatable Boats) that includes coverage of Avon. This Crusing World Guide To Inflatable Tenders article includes coverage of Avon. This book covers Avon Inflatables. This book mentions Avon Inflables in coverage of Materials for Inflatables and Hovercraft Designs. An article on factory expansion. Air polution article. US Navy inflatables order article. Dafen Park expansion article. Sources exist to expand the article. I believe there is more significant coverage not yet found. Gab4gab (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content to the article today using additional sources. Gab4gab (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: My main issue is with difference between the amount of sources and the depth of those sources. There are many sources and there is no denying that fact. The problem is that these sources are mainly mentions of the company and not about the company itself. However, the criteria also says that if the depth is not substantial (which it isn't), then using multiple independent sources can establish notability. Based on your cleanup, those sources are now evident. Thanks for taking the time to do so.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources that establish notability.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should evaluate the sources provided by commenters. Please note that a nomination with delete !votes cannot be withdrawn (see WP:WITHDRAWN).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Gab4gab. Nördic Nightfury 10:17, 24 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IDS NEXT Software

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

No evidence of notability or passing WP:ORG. Sources (if any) are mostly press releases not independent sources. Last AFD closed with no contributors. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does no more than describe a company going about its business (developing its software, providing client training):run of the mill activity rather than indicating encyclopaedic notability. Nor do the given sources or those found by search, including the tailored Indian news source search, indicate better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any article that says they provide solutions while the subject has nothing at all to do with solvents was written by marketing. Even if the company were notable from being around so long, it would need to have an article in English. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 15 March 2017 (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 Comcast Cable. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Spotlight

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

Should be a redirect. Only primary sources, and simply a promo for the subsidiary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comcast Cable per nom. Reads like advertising in its current state. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nearly the entire article was COPYVIO from the official website. What's keep-able should just as well be a section on the main. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Basically the company's ad sales department for local time that most people wouldn't really discern on cable channels and WP:PROMO content; Charter/TWC/Bright House and Cox have the same departments. Nate • (chatter) 15:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:PROMO. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bewakoof.com

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

Sole author was a clear paid advertiser, given their one focus in starting heavily PR-informed articles, all of which shared the consistency, including in the listed paid press sources, something that is instantly deleted by our long-held policies which make no compromises, and there's no exceptions here; all sources are clear paid press, announcements, notices, company-hosted columns, etc. instantly unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH which maintains such sources are still not independent, wherever or whoever published. Unsurprising, all sources found are clearly labeled to the company's own contributions and authorship, complete with mirrored consistency, showing only the company is responsible for its own PR attention. Because our policies have no exceptions to company-serviced profiles, there's nothing to actually genuinely improve. Given there's also clear uses of multiple accounts instantly violates WP:Sockpuppetry, especially in considerations of using accounts to mass advertise, given No Advertising was among the first policies WP set. Any user who knowingly violates WP:Paid, which has legal considerations, is immediately barred from Wikipedia given the WMF Legal itself confirms it's a non-negotiable policy and, to emphasize the blatancy, see the sources: 1-10 are all clearly labeled to the company's own authorship, 3 is a funding announcement, and while any search such as this and here supposedly found news, they too are clearly labeled as company-sponsored profiles, something of which is showing the company is only responsible for its own advertising, given the dates all consistently maintain a timed schedule. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (additional comment post DGG's comments. Lourdes 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~ Economic TImes, Financial Express, Hindu Business Line and others are not paid press sources. They are in-depth news reports from highly credible news organizations, which make the company qualify on WP:ORG. Also, the company has been covered by noted authors like Rashmi Bansal in her book Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, which documents quite deeply the rise of this website. Lourdes 06:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how can it be independently significant if all of them are clear business announcements, something that WP:CORPDEPTH initially notes of unacceptable, because it's still where the company talks about itself, wherever published. The second one itself has self-supported claims as is the third, all maintaining the mirrored consistency. Paid advertising is a non-negotiable basis for removal. SwisterTwister talk 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's been discussion by knowledgeable Indian editors here how bylined news stories in many major Indian dailies or news websites can be essentially advertorial, even if not identified as such. It's apparently an issue. I'm not weighing in on this case or the sources cited above, but caution must be taken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article is purely promotional. Company does not seem to be notable. In order to establish notability references need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently there are 10 references in the article and none do anything to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. The book mentioned above book, Arise, Awake: The inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs, doesn't seem to help either, as the section is about Prabhkiran Singh and Siddharth Munot, founders of the company and the coverage about Bewakoof.com is mostly information provided by Singh and Munot. CBS527^Talk 05:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references are the usual PR. This can be told both by looking at the nature of the sources, and by actually reading the material. As a general rule, an article created that includes direct press releases indicates either that the article does not know our standards )which can be true of a good faith editor) or is determined to ignore them by making the list sound impressive (which usually indicates a paid promotional editor). The ed. of this article has written several other articles all using the same inadequate referencing methods; however likely, this still doesn't prove them a paid promotional editor--it might just be a persistent beginner who has not yet learned, and is unlikely to learn until the articles get deleted, The way to decide if the material in Indian news sources are advertorials, is to read them. They tend to be exactly what would be used for a press release. It is possible that this is the accepted standard of journalism there--it certainly seems a very common characteristic. Acceptable as those news sources may think it for their own standards,it doesn't meet ours. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are most likely redressed PR. For example, this one although in Economic Times, is actually in the "Small biz / Startups" section. The source btw consists of largely the company talking about itself which wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. The content of the source such as "Bewakoof.com's latest product category is specifically tailored to cater to this particular consumer base, who wants its fashion solutions to be stylish yet affordable" and "With a diverse range of colours, design options and prints, Bewakoof.com is also planning to add chic denims and other casual wear options in the near future to its superb array of fashion solutions." is marketing speak. The other sources are of a similar type and are not useful for notability. I am also concerned about the possible COI/Paid editing by the creator, see Special:Contributions/Pritesh496. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 14 March 2017 (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 Avril Group. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saipol

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

The article does not justify any notability per WP:COMPANY TopCipher (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG: Biodiesel Magazine, Reuters, La France Agricole. More sources available in French business press. Appears that steps were missed in WP:BEFORE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it make sense to redirect it to Avril Group? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avril Group. This on its own fails WP:GNG. There is no widespread, in depth coverage. Just bits here and there. Wikipedia is not The Wall Street Journal. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avril Group; no independent secondary sourcing. Anything useful (of which I'm not convinced) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avril Group. Simply not enough in-depth coverage of the subordinate entity to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 1 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EliteHeads

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

All sources are self-published and none is WP:RS. A search turned up nothing better. WP:PROMO; fails WP:NCORP. Narky Blert (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and would have qualified for speedyDel. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 8 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeek

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

Still unchanged company advertising as the history shows, which also shows 1 suspiciously active IP, 92.20.196.186, adding only what the company would advertise to its clients and it happens to be geolocated near the company, so that itself shows no one has successfully improved the article beyond despite assurances about it, and also considering the past attempts; joining the past SPAs, the forementioned IP, Ymd2014, Nicoleblanckenberg, Eyaladam0 and Yofisimon, all suggestively showing employee accounts. To analyze the current sources: 1-5 are all clearly labeled company-POV announcements (including the supposedly best coverage), 6 is an empty link, 12 is actually the same link as #2 before and 7-11 & 13-17 and 19-22 are all labeled funding achievements and advertised columns. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH which states: [Unacceptable sources are] Brief announcements, simple statements, press releases, anything by or for the company, or where it talks about itself, wherever published", and although searches here and here found links, the majority of them are simply fitting the above "unacceptable" criteria, even when considering the few stories about the CEO's imprisonment; closely analyzing each page simply found immediate changing to 2012, showing the in-depth bareness. WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid have always taken importance when evaluating Wikipedia and its purposes, because No Advertising has always been one of them. Also examining the article closely again shows the separated timing: March, August and December 2014, April, May and November 2015 and January and July 2016. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldenberg, Roy (2014-03-19). "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals.
  ...
  Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort.
  The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there.
  For the time being it only has a Hebrew website.
  The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze , who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor.
2. Shamah, David (2014-08-21). "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it. A new app helps Israelis reclaim hundreds of millions of shekels lost annually to unused credits". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year.
  The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage.
  While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”
3. Keach, Sean (2015-01-20). "Zeek app lets you buy and sell unwanted gift cards". TrustedReviews. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease.
  It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone.
  The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter.
  Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases.
4. Rabi, Idan (2016-07-27). "Israeli gift card marketplace co Zeek raises $9.5m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round.
5. Reback, Gedalyah (2016-07-27). "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". he:Geektime. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures.
  The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market.
6. Levy, Ruti; Appelberg, Shelly; Orpaz, Inbal (2016-07-28). "TechNation: Zeek Raises $9.5 Million for Store-voucher Marketplace". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
7. "Top 10 Israeli Undiscovered Startups". Jewish Business News. 2016-07-06. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me
8. O'Hear, Steve (2005-05-18). "Zeek Lets You Buy And Sell Unwanted Gift Vouchers". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say.
  Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion.
9. O'Hear, Steve (2016-07-27). "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth.
  The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount.
  In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast.
  With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation.
10. Chang, Lulu (2016-07-27). "Growing startup Zeek helps you sell those unwanted gift cards". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons.
11. Shapira, Ariel (2015-05-27). "Tech Talk: Israel is a Kickstarter superpower". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin.
  Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cunard: I was impressed that you put so much effort into looking for references that would establish notability. Unfortunately it appears you have a different interpretation to WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH than others including me. Sources must be secondary - that means they shouldn't parrot PR releases or extensively quote from corporate officers or investors. Also, funding rounds or investor participation is not considered useful for establishing notability. Looking at the 11 references you provided:

1. Classic advertorial. Describes the problem (straight off the corporate data sheets and website) and then the flash of insight by the founders and the solution including selected quotes from the CEO and a mention of investors. It's not intellectually separate, relies on Primary sources and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS.

2. Just to save myself typing the same things over and over ... please refer to what I said in 1. above. Same thing applies here.

3. And again.

4. Fund raising does not establish notability. It's also another advertorial. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

5. Same as 4. above.

6. Same as 4. above.

7. Same as 4. above. Also being on a list of similar companies also fails WP:COPRPDEPTH.

8: Same as 1. and 4. above. Also, just be aware, Techcrunch is just about never an independent source.

9. See 8. above

10. See 1. and 4. above

11. See 1. above but mainly see 4. above.

It's a shame that for so much effort I don't agree with any of your choices for sources that establish notability. If you've any questions about the interpretation of sources above, fire ahead and I'll do my best to answer them. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider bylined articles published in reputable Israeli newspapers to be advertisements. The assertion that the journalists are publishing advertorials is a vicious attack on the journalists' integrity. Such attacks should not be made without clear evidence that the journalists' independence has in fact been compromised by payment from the subject, for example.
That a journalist has asked for and included quotes from the subjects of the articles is proper journalistic practice. That you disagree with the newspapers' journalistic and editorial judgment about what should be included in their articles does not render the sources unreliable.
Fundraising articles do establish notability when the articles provide deep coverage of the subject. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The articles I listed here clearly "extends beyond routine announcements" by discussing the products and history in detail.
Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains why we have different opinions. I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? Anyway, the articles speak for themselves. An article that follows the well known formula of "problem, lightbulb moment by entrepeneur, company solution, funding, selected PR quotes from a founder or CEO or other company officer" is a Primary source with no evidence of independent fact checking. You'll find that when a company has established real notability, this formula tends to disappear very quickly. You say that fundtaising articles do establish notability - which is true, but only if those articles are independent. If you read a little more from WP:CORPDEPTH you'll come across Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. You'll also find that acceptable sources include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. You'll find that a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it except for press releases, press kits, or similar works which is where that "formula" for the articles come from. The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains why we have different opinions. – I don't consider journalists to become non-independent when they interview their articles' subjects. I don't attack journalists' reputation by saying they are writing advertorials when they are following the standard journalistic practice of including quotations from their subjects, have a writing style I don't like, or include content I consider unimportant.
I'm wasn't sure why you highlighted "reputable Israeli newspapers" - what about others like Digital Trends and Techcrunch which are mainly North American? – the Israeli newspapers have covered Zeek in substantial detail so are the strongest sources about the company.
The bottom line is that none of the *facts* can be verified by an independent secondary source, since the sources are getting their facts directly from the company. – you are making an assertion unsupported by evidence. The sources could have independently verified the information in their articles during fact-checking by the sources' editors. Since no evidence has been provided to show otherwise and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, I will assume good faith that these sources, which have a reputation for fact-checking, did in fact do their due diligence and are not blindly publishing advertorials masquerading as actual news articles.
When you say journalists writing news articles are not producing independent articles, you are claiming that the journalists are committing journalistic malpractice. Reputable publications that have determined a journalist has committed journalistic malpractice will fire the journalist for failing to do his or her job. Journalistic malpractice is a serious charge to make and should not be made without clear evidence.
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same exact sources that were analyzed in the first AfD: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH because the sources contained clear pricing information, costs, servicing information, etc. (certainly not satisfying WP:GNG, since anything with pricing information is sure to not be independent), and it wouldn't even satisfy WP:What Wikipedia is not, our main policy. Even if the sources were acceptable, the violations of WP:Paid, alone are non-negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:ADVERT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails WP:CORP. Article has been "reference bombed" mostly by IP 92.20.196.186 (37 sources are referenced in 6 sentence lede!) which do nothing to establish notability as they are either direct press releases or derived from company press releases or articles where over half the article is quotes from a company executive which are not independent sources per policy WP:PROMOTION and guideline "Non-independent sources - Press Releases".. WP:GNG requires a topic to meet all 3 requirements of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Strangely, the article has 22 sources listed and, with the possible exception of the CNN Money article, none seem to meet the "independent" requirement. CBS527^Talk 03:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about this article from The Times of Israel and this article from Globes? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the majority of the content about the company in both articles is coming from a primary source, either a company press release or from a company executive. Since the references are derived from primary sources they are not sufficient to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions from the two articles are not attributed to the company executives. What specific company press releases is the material from The Times of Israel and Globes articles reliant on? Cunard (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of notability; the company is not yet encyclopedically relevant. The coverage presented at this AfD is about company plans, aspirations and funding, with the news of its funding repeated multiple times, such as "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". This is insufficiently independent coverage, and strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and the sources listed above fail WP:RS as they are not independent and rely on Primary sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It is permissible for Wikipedia articles to be sourced to reputable secondary sources that have obtained information from primary sources and then validated that the information is accurate through fact-checking.
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources highlighted by Cunard are reliable independent sources giving the company and its history significant coverage. Sources such as Times of Israel and Digital Trends pass WP:RS, it really is that simple. If that's not enough here is a source from CNN giving the subject significant coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN coverage has the same issue as all of the above -- it's not fully independent. For example, the article states:

"Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind said his app has been downloaded 200,000 times and has helped people buy and sell over $200,000 in gift cards since launching earlier this year."

So we have solely the claims of the company on why it's significant and notable. This cannot be used to write an NPOV article, hence WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the entire CNN article is a promotion written by the company, or that one quote used from the company invalidates CNN as a source. Regardless, I fail to see how WP:TOOSOON applies. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The remarkable similarity between most of the references indicates their common origin as a press release. One or two are more extensive interviews by the founder, in which they say whatever the choose to say. This is firmly established as unusable for the purposes of establish notability--and for almost anything else except what they choose to give as their opinions. It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. At that stage these ae firms that are in great need of advertising and publicity, as they usually have very little else to offer. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to help them establish their business. The elaborate defense above of some of the references loss its point, when one reads what they actually say. Some such presentations in detail do succeed in establishing some degree of notability, and can be a perfectly valid way of arguing. In this case, it just confirm the lack of notability . As just one example "Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion "; considering their total funding is under $30 million, this extravagent goal clearly shows how far they are from having actual significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not "remarkably similar".
It is highly unlikely that a company of this minute size would be notable--almost no firm in the A or B rounds of financing is, though there are exceptions. – firms of any size or any round of financing are notable if they pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is an unbelievable claim to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not reliable sources or to say that The Times of Israel, Globes, and CNN are not independent of the subject.
That an Israeli company received significant coverage in the American news station CNN and in the UK publication TrustedReviews strongly establishes it is notable. A non-notable firm would not receive international significant coverage in respected publications.
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage from CNN, Times of Israel, and Globes is non-trivial. A quick search also brought up mentions in the guardian, MarketWatch, and the economist (a short data piece - but actually quite interesting (from a finance perspective) - they compared discount-rates by chain on Zeek's website - by scraping data from Zeek - would seem this is independent research) - which I'm placing in the article. As this is a consumer-facing business dealing with a common consumer problem (in some markets) - it is receiving more coverage than a typical series-B startup.[15] [16] [17]. These are not promotional pieces - they are covering a few companies in this "gift card resale market" Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - looking at the press, it seems "gift card coverage" is an annual recurring staple around Christmas. And it seems Zeek (and 2-3 other startups) have worked themselves into this recurring coverage - so whomever is covering the "gift card angle" on the yearly piece at various outlets - is working them in - which shows notability.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. DGG's analysis is spot on, so nothing further to add. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per DGG's concise WP:POLICY-based analysis, which is unclouded by waffle and which ignores off-topic suggestions to look at squirrels. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (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. Can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brand X Music

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

Primary sourced advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. SaintAviator lets talk 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GigSalad

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

Still unchanged since the last AfD, which found considerable weight in the Delete side, considering of the 2 Keeps, one of them was by a now-banned paid spammer, to note the one "good" source that was offered there was in fact a clearly labeled business announcement; to analyze the current sources: 1 is a business profile with 2 and 3 being similar but a guide instead, and 4, 5 and 6 are all clearly labeled company-sourced announcements, which are simply not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH (company guidelines), WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid considering the one account has the usual signs suggesting either an employee or hired help. Our policies have never negotiated with advertising or webhosting, considerin that was one of the set policies when WP started. To also search for existing sources, I went to here and here but it simply found pages and pages of published or republished announcements, press releases, notices and similar, now compare to WP:CORPDEPTH's stated [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple statements, brief announcements, press releases, anything for or by the company or where it talks about itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional article on non notable firm. The references are primarily press releases, some from extremely unreliable sources like local business journals. Rankings in "rapidly growing" lists are essentially indications of "not yet notable" -- this is especially true for a rank of 682nd. The actual awards are trivial. The article in CruchBase is a striking example of a useless reference--its a general article, which is just a name check--it says nothing at all about the company except its existence, as one of many others. Any article using mateial such as this can be assumed to be a desperate promotional effort to make an article where none is warranted. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. obvious self-promotion MiracleMat (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; still non notable & WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 13 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cable Internet providers

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

Does not appear to be an encyclopedic list. Exists mostly as a product or service comparison site with a list of prices and free advertising for ISPs that would never pass the notability requirements Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CATALOG & as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Alas, it has a bunch of information in it and editors working on it; however, probably gets out of date real fast. Better idea would be a category, and by now (if not soon) effectively *all* cable providers also provide Internet access. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunway Group subsidiaries

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

Article exists solely as a stand alone directory of non notable companies. Fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically #7: "Simple listings without context information. ...subdivisions..." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subsidiaries. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just go to their web site! At best this would be an out-of-date mirror. W Nowicki (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIR Spiderone 22:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 13 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maskulin Music Group

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

Unreferenced (aside from official site) stub tagged since August 2012. Searches return no WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article cites no secondary sources. I did a Google search and didn't come up with any good secondary sources. This article very clearly does not meet standards for notability and should be deleted.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fler; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 8 March 2017 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Resort & Spa, Karambunai

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

A mysteriously removed speedy. This is a basically promotional article for an unremarkable business; references are basically about the company operating it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable resort property going about its business. No encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from exceptional circumstances hotels are generally not notable, and this one is just another one of those WP:MILL hotel articles with little in the way of encyclopedic relevance. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2017 (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 GMA Network (company). NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Entertainment TV

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

One of several spin off articles of the main company, GMA Network (company), they all should be redirected to the parent article, none have enough notability for standalone articles. Will include others in this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages based on the same rationale:

List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMA Worldwide is also up for nomination for the same reasons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you search that up on google. This article already placed there. As the profile has it.Kazaro (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, you need to make an AfD entry for each article you are nominating. Do not add a new nomination to an existing AfD. Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:MULTIAFD, Softlavender. I created the AfD, then added the related page, as per guidelines. It's also why I didn't add these to the already existing AfD on the article. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the two articles you have so far on this page do not fit WP:MULTIAFD. They are completely different types of articles, completely different subjects, and the arguments for each will be completely different. Moreover, when a person clicks on the notice at the top of List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc., they should not be brought to this AfD, which bears little or no resemblance to it. Please do not confuse the issue -- create a separate AfD for what is clearly a separate, distinct, and very different article. Bundling nominations for two very different articles makes the job of the closer very difficult as well. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, we're simply going to disagree on this. They are clearly related, both (and the other one already at AfD) having to do with the parent company and its subsidiaries, and both suffer from the same malady. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too don't see anything wrong with what the nominator is doing. They seem related enough for a group nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA Network (company) per nom. Doesn't appear to be independently notable, and a search for sources doesn't finy anything that would establish independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company); Wikipedia does not need multiple articles on the same company / its subsidiaries. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It shows that this list doesn't fit to the articles info box. Kaponohillen (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, otherwise Redirect to GMA Network (company). -WayKurat (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Materials Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously kept as WP:LISTED, but it is not listed on the main board of the NYSE but a subsidiary board only. What press sources there are, seem to be only about 1 nonfatal accident DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED as WP:LISTED is not automatic. There is no significant coverage of this company.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article currently has encyclopedic content and passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it does not pass GNG. The only possible secondary source merely regurgitates the audited report from the company. The rest are primary sources, business profiles from Reuters and Yahoo, and some don't even mention Continental.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable company going about its business. The content is not encyclopedically relevant and rather routine: "settled lawsuit"; "manufactures products". At $100M in revenue, the company is relatively small for a public one, so I don't see indicators of notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References I can find consist of company-owned websites and standard business directory listings. Nothing notable.Glendoremus (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Probably a great company but not notable enough for an article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:25, 19 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Engineering Consultants India

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

Not every enterprise owned by the Indian Government is notable , and there's no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- cited to primary sources & no indications of notability or significance for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics solutions inc

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

Non-notable small company advert Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I A7ed it and it was declined because two of the products were blue-linked (PEAKS and RAPTOR (software), which I did not see at the time. Both of the product pages appear to be spam creations as well, with one of them having either sock or meatpuppetry involved to save it from G11 back in 2008 [18]. As for this article, there is no in-depth third-party reliable sourcing out there. When I checked before the A7 tag, all that could be found were blogs and press releases. Everything else was using bioinformatics in a generic sense about another company's products. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This series of articles may have been created by single-purpose corporate accounts. Bioinformatics solutions inc by Bm-posting, PEAKS by FTMS ("for tandem mass spectrometry"?), RAPTOR (software) by Bsiraptor. I'm an inclusionist, but this does quack like a PR campaign. Certes (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't nominated the software yet because I'm still trying to determine if they have any notability, but it does appear to be a COI/paid-editing situation on them as part of a PR campaign. If anyone who is more familiar with the subject matter could take a look at the software to see if it is notable independent of the publisher it would be great. If not, I'll probably AfD them at some point today or tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all about the types of research the company does, not about the company itself. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 10 March 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unitel Pictures

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

Lacks sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available news sourcing consists of mentions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent company GMA Network. I'm also fine with Delete --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not owned by GMA; a redirect would suggest it is owned by the network, which isn't the case. Otherwise, a non-notable telenovela producer out of many. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 16 March 2017 (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomEssence

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

Very thin sources as to actual notability -- most sources are links to trademark databases and similar general info that don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. There are a couple articles that mention the existence of the company (hiring new employees, being awarded a minor R&D grant) but nothing that adds up to WP:ORG. A Google search doesn't reveal any major press that isn't already listed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:38, 18 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten Network

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Sources seem to consist of press releases/PR, primary sources, and such. If you disagree, please explain how it meets the notability guidelines in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because...". Thank you, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the guidance. To give a little background on why I created this article in the first place, I started by finding the OB10 page on Wikipedia, and was considering updating and improving it. Looking deeper, I found that OB10 had been acquired by Tungsten Network in 2013. I was hoping to create a page for the newer iteration of the company, and then either merge or redirect the OB10 page into the new one. With the recent improvements, this is what I see:

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" because it is freely traded on the London Stock Exchange as (TUNG), Tungsten Corporation Plc.

---- This article meets the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (companies) for "Publicly traded corporations" by establishing notability via third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review.

---- This article meets the criteria for Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as no original research was needed to extract this content, while the article makes use of reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'd like to do this right, and as a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm hoping for some guidance. Is this what was needed to establish notability and preserve the article, or is more needed before the Sunday deadline? Will pieces of this article need to be trimmed/culled before it can be launched?

...Notes/comments on updates since the article was flagged...

Looking into the notability guidelines you've cited, I see that along with pointing out that the company is publicly owned, it was both relevant and important to also note that they're listed on the London Stock Exchange -- I've added that piece in, which I feel does a lot to help to better establish the company's notability.

Additionally, I've added a set of better citations. The current list includes third-party citations from the London Stock Exchange, Bloomberg, The Yorkshire Post, Computer Weekly, PYMNTS, Spend Matters UK/Europe, ProactiveInvestors, and (debatably) Trade and Forfaiting Review. I'll make an effort to continue to develop this in the next few days as well, but my house is being painted, which has been disruptive to working on things like this at home, and I had originally planned further development of this article as a longer-running, ongoing process. The company, in its current form (after the acquisition of OB10 and the 2013 rebanding/transition to Tungsten Network) is still relatively new, and I've seen articles and new sources being published fairly regularly. I imagine that the company's notability will continue to develop as time goes on. MushuNeak (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument I find compelling is being listed on LSE. The secondary sources coverage is either in passing (see my comments on Economist/Computer Weekly below), or poor, ex. Yorkshire Post [19] "article" seems like a rewritten press release - no journalistic value whatsoever. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm tossing this in, per my reasons above. Learning more about this process as I read other discussions. MushuNeak (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Existing sources to show it easily clears WP:GNG. The fact that articles about a business are in business press is unremarkable and expected, not reason to ignore them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn: Which sources? Please note that per my comment below this article has some clearly fake references (like The Economist article which has a single passing sentence on the company) or the Computer Weekly one which doesn't mention it at all. What sources convinced you, through their in-depth, reliable coverage of this company, that it is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, Yorkshire Post, Growth Company and Spend Matters, among others. Most especially, the Computer Weekly' article, which is extensive. I would return your own caution about reading the sources before !voting. The Computer Weekly article is all about the flagship product under a previous corporate name, as the other sources document. It alone is nearly sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the sources are clearly WP:RS, e.g. Bloomberg, The Economist and Computer Weekly. Tip - link to them in the references. There's a big difference between a clean WOT report and a link to the Wiki article about the source. Narky Blert (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narky Blert: I am very fond of The Economist. Unfortunately, TE article is NOT ABOUT THE company. IT just quotes one of its workers in a single short sentence ([20]). It is totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Being mentioned in passing by reliable sources is not enough for GNG/NCORP. Please, read the sources before saying they are sufficient. I also hope that the closing admin remembers this is not a vote. Regarding Bloomberg, we have three links: one seem a generic directory entry, which is not considered sufficient (since the entry criteria are not clear) and they all seem down ATM for me and not in Internet Archive, so if you can access them please review them in more detail for us; and then the Computer Weekly one - which DOES NOT MENTION THE COMPANY AT ALL: [21]. Setting aside inaccessible Bloomberg pieces, the other two sources you quote are pure red herrings - they sound reliable, but they are fakes, not establishing notability, added there as a common spammer tactic of WP:BOMBARDMENT, in hope that people will see "plenty of reliable references", skip on accessing them and vote keep to the spammers delight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a run of the mill company with about $30 million in annual revenues. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Escape Hunt Experience

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

Blatant spam - all substantial edits have been carried out by single purpose accounts. The citations provided are mostly from promotional material and the few that aren't do not prove anything other than the company exists and is enthusiastic about promoting itself, something we can already ascertain by reading this article.
I'd also recommend that the following accounts are blocked by administrators - none of them have contributed anything other than spamming this company on various pages - Sircharlie69, Escape_Hunt_France, Creativechili, Simonasia.
Note: I'm unlikely to appear on this IP address again so will not respond to any messages left on my talkpage. 79.65.126.212 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. Accounts are all at least 3 months stale, so blocking doesn't seem necessary even if one has an obvious COI username. ansh 666 08:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the AFD, much appreciated. 79.65.126.212 (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I can't help but feel that the statement in the article On 18 November 2016, it was announced that Escape Hunt Group Limited and its shareholders had entered into an exclusivity agreement with AIM-quoted Dorcaster plc providing Dorcaster with an exclusive right to negotiate for the acquisition by it of the entire issued share capital of Escape Hunt Group Limited. has a lot to do with it. Total spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. HighKing has removed most promotional content from the article, so I'd regard the spam issue as mostly resolved (for now). The subject is mentioned in lots and lots of news articles, but most of them are general coverage of escape room games, of which Escape Hunt is one brand among many others. Escape Hunt is the focus of reporting in these articles from CNBC and the Bangkok Post, among others, so it might just pass the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it fails WP:CORP. It should be noted that the company is headquartered in Bangkok, so in my opinion the Bangkok Post article referenced above by Paul 012 doesn't suffice to show notability (it's routine coverage of a local company IMO). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyon Technologies

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

fails WP:CORP. possible advert created by single purpose editor. coverage is very limited LibStar (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fastest-growing sectoral lists are not in themselves evidence of notability. Nor is either the article content or output of my searches indicating this to be more than one of the many firms providing SAP-based services. (Note: there is some 2011 coverage of a similarly named firm based in India.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software company.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 15 March 2017 (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. Hut 8.5 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RigWorld

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. the references are noticces of minor awards only, DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. agree that awards are minor and do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards appear to be national Ghanaian awards and may therefore establish notability. Unless this isn't the case, I'm leaning towards "Keep". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -- un unremarkable private company going about its business. The minor industry awards do not amount to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medisize Schweiz AG

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not an independent company. Unsourced (and I could not find proper independent sourcing elsewhere) The Banner talk 12:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ist grown from a interpendend company and today a national branch of an international company. FFA P-16 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete per nom, no "evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" and if the article's creator is correct in saying that it is merely a branch of a larger company, that is actually another for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The parent Phillips-Medisize may be notable, but I'm not seeing much of anything about the subsidiary. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 10 March 2017 (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isopress AG

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

fails WP:NCORP The Banner talk 09:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting part of swiss plastic industrie history / thermoset components. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interesting is not enough (and very personal) so have a look at the german wikipedia: [22] --2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:302A:8FCC:778F:F72A (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indire Entertainment

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

Searches turned up nothing on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JStor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable production company going about its business, nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:24, 11 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food Products Procurement and Supply OJSC

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

Makes no real claim of notability, and I can't find any (though I'm not well versed in this region's business-news sources). DMacks (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 07:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 15 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curvve Recordings

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

Promotion for non notable business. Business lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of listings and pages about others which sometime make a minor mentions. Created by a mix of accounts directly connected to the business and by a now blocked spammer. Complete with a faked quote. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they produce songs that reach the #1 position on Billboard and Beatport charts,^[23][24] and work with award winning singers.^[25] So I don't know how you would want to treat this. Lourdes 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Personally, I would say that the article should simply be deleted, but there is consensus to merge, and my task as an administrator is to reflect that consensus, not impose my own view. I shall redirect the article, and leave it to one or more of the editors who argued for merging to decide exactly what content should be merged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BCGsearch.com

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

There's a fair bit of contentious content here, to be sure, but I'm not seeing sourcing which meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I am open to appropriate alternatives to deletion, but in any case, I think the right outcome here is likely to be improved by a community discussion. joe decker ^talk 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move material to the appropriate place (possibly Cyber defamation law) to describe this dispute (more RS: [[26]][27] [28]). The lawsuit appears to be notable, but probably not the two parties to the lawsuit nor the entity where it happened (BCG Search) appear to have notability outside the dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge dispute information to Cyber defamation law as per @David Tornheim: above and Keep rest as per WP:UNDUE. There are WP:RS for the search firm doing search firmy-type things: [29], [30] and for the firm's owner firmly practicing pedal-oral implantation multiple times. These Above the Law mentions are not flattering, but AtL is a WP:RS in legal news and as such does contribute to WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Move/selective merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:00, 23 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra Mutual Fund

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

This company does not appear to meet the standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor quality but appears to be the best available on the company, which speaks to the company's lack of notability. Anything salvageable can be merged into Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, but there's no reason for the mutual fund to have its own article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The references listed above are all either announcements in relation to granting a license to the parent to operate a fund or are PR announcements complete with interviews/comments from the CEO or other company officer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep One dedicated article from unimpeachably reliable source, The Economic Times. Both the other print/website sources are well done, non-tabloid, but both of their Wikipedia articles have self-promotion issues. If they are reliable, then a keep seems a no-brainer. Input fr/ unbiased editors familiar with the Indian business environment would be helpful. Tapered (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Any notable content can be merged with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited which already has a sectio on the mutual fund. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, a merge is unlikely to actually occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would the solution be to do some sort of preemptive merge in the event that the article is deleted? Or if the article is going to be deleted, should we ask the AFD closer to hold off until a merge has been completed? Marquardtika (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge !votes are allowed at AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited § Mahindra Mutual Fund. Seems to be a decent compromise, and this WP:ATD-M can improve the merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I just removed some copyvio from the article (diff1, diff2), and there's not much left worth merging. Struck my !vote above. Delete. No prejudice against a clean-start article, sans copyright violations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 15 March 2017 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finmo

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor and better sourcing doesn't appear to be available. Written in a folksy, PR way that makes it appear as if a company representative created the article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. This content belongs on the company's web site, not here, i.e. this language: "The secret sauce here is the Social Feed..." -- seriously? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY - No Third party coverage cited at all - the first reference is a companies house listing - so it exists, but that doesn't make it notable, the second is their own blog, the third was issued by the company "We wish to create an entire ecosystem ..." and the fourth doesn't mention them at all - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails COMPANY, PROMO, GNG (external coverage) South Nashua (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 17 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sensis Agency

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

Fails WP:ORG. I am unable to find anything in-depth. I was initially going to strip out the promotional wording and lists of awards and clients but there wouldn't be much left. As it stands, there is nothing I can find to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST for promotional materials that belong on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 10 March 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Printful

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

An old declined speedy, on the grounds that there are sources. None substantial enough imo; this is just another promotional article on an unremarkable business. TheLongTone (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company going about its business; content generally being corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of several linked articles on The Draugiem Group and its ventures, with material about other start-ups as a significant proportion of this article's content and references. The blog and local coverage is insufficient and I am seeing nothing else to indicate that this T-shirt and poster printing start-up is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 9 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Truepower

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT apply here because (1) WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a business webhost, and this itself is a non-negotiable policy and, next, WP:CORPDEPTH states that "Unacceptable sources include: works carrying mere trivial coverage, brief statements, announcements, press releases, any material written or published by the company, anything by for the company or where the company talks about itself, wherever published", and itself fits the current sourcing given: 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 is their own website which is resourced 6 times, 3 and 4 is a trade publication which is therefore unacceptable considering it's simply echoing whatever the company itself says, therefore not independent; 5 and 6 are simply local announcements, 7 is simply an FAQ (see here) and 9 is simply a republished announcement. Next, WP:GNG itself, not to mention, never being an actual policy, is itself stated "Subjects may be presumed (not guaranteed" if....", thus it's not interchangeable or replaceable to our established policies, considering advertising has always been enforced as unacceptable. Now, the new sources,the 1 Spanish source is also only a mere announcement, about one of the company plan as are the 4 that followed, The AlbanyBusinessReview is self-labeled as a "business trade publication" basically meaning it only serves the businesses and their PR, thus not independent, regardless of whatever information there is. As past reviews of this article showed, there's been no genuinely independent, significant or substantial coverage, such as what this search found (in there, the 1st page are all clearly labeled press releases or notices, the second page emphasizes it until it says "no further articles". Even examining the sources offered at the 1st AfD, were simply trade publications, something even WP:CORPDEPTH stated was unacceptable, and that's actually one of the simplest standards for any company article; worse, one of the comments actually stated "All of the sources in the article seem to be from the company, and it is rather promotional in tone, [here's a company quote]", itself enough for any deletion. Also, as our simplest standards and policies show, articles must be improved if found to actually be notable and past attempts at this have had no success, but considering there's never been no actual meaningful coverage about the company to at least suggest minimal improvements, there's nothing to suggest this company should continue misusing us as a business webhost; "Wikipedia is not a business webhost" is actually mentioned repeatedly in the policy WP:NOT. The history also shows several SPA accounts focusing in what the company published at its own website, thus we can safely presume WP:Paid was violated alone especially as some of the accounts actually stated they were an employee, it's worse when the company consistently showed contributions in the 7 years this article existed. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial. Separately the article has had plenty of chances for improvement after two AfDs, but this has not occurred. If this company was indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), than an editor independent of the topic will likely create the page some time in the future. There's no rush to reach such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article and sources do not establish establish notability per guidelines. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Current sources

1. Company web site

2. Company web site

3. All mentions of substance are quotes from company's CEO or Director of Solar Services

4. Trade publication - company doesn't seemed to be mentioned

5. All mentions of company contains information provided by company CEO

6. Trivial mention that company produced a map for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

7. Dead Link

8. PR announcement about company acquiring Windographer

9. Company product web site (Windographer)

10. Blog entry provided by company

11. Company web site

The further reading section contains PR info or trivial mentions.

G-searches and HighBeam provided more of same and NYTimes had no hits at all. CBS527^Talk 02:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This company was previously known as AWS Truewind and Meteosim. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GNG; enough coverage exists to meet WP:N. Some source examples are listed below. Note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on various websites. Full disclosure: I closed the first AfD discussion as an uninvolved user, but this does not preclude me from participating in this new AfD discussion.

This company also meets WP:AUD in that it has received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage in Wired as well as coverage in Spain and Iowa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

"America’s Wind Energy Potential Triples in New Estimate". Wired'.
"El viento impulsa a Meteosim". La Vanguardia. – Based in Spain

– English-translated La Vanguardia article. Title: "The wind drives Meteosim"

"Unos físicos para prever el tiempo". El País. – Based in Spain

– English-translated El País article. Title: Some physicists to predict the weather

"Simular la atmósfera de Brasil a 20 años vista 'sin pisar el país'". El Mundo. – Based in Spain.

– English-translated El Mundo article. Title: Simulate the atmosphere of Brazil to 20 years seen 'without treading the country'

"Con el viento al Magreb". El Periódico de Catalunya. (in Spanish) – Based in Barcelona, Spain

– English-translated El Periódico de Catalunya article. Title: With the wind to the Maghreb

"The art of building utility-scale wind farms". Cherokee Chronicle Times. – Based in Cherokee, Iowa
"Change in wind hurts future". Times Union.
"Wind energy company to model L.I. coast area". Times Union.
"AWS Truepower works to predict the future of wind to site turbines". Times Union. (subscription required)
"Software acquisition broadens AWS Truepower analytical services". Albany Business Review. (Note that searching for this article's title in Google only provides a link to this article at Albany Business Review, so this is not a press release).
Wind Power For Dummies – Has content about the company's windNavigator service.
Windpower Monthly Newsmagazine (subscription required) – Has content about the company's windNavigator service.

Article title searches

Comment and analysis - The Albany Business Review is in fact a press release profile because it's an indiscriminate local business story advertising its local business, something WP:CORPDEPTH states is unacceptable as is WP:NOT; the first sources are simply guide stories about the company's activities, also unconvincing for WP:CORPDEPTH. Even the paywall Tim's Union are simply trivial business stories about "plans" which, to quote WP:CORPDEPTH is unacceptable because anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published". Our simple standards themselves have never accepted primary influenced sources as these because Wikipedia has no place in servicing company needs. As a native Spanish speaker, I never needed a translation of the Spanish sources and read them to find they're only casual announcements about the company, in fact ElMundo, LaVanguardia and ElPais is in their specific "PR business section". As our policies state, articles must be improved to be notable, something we've long held. "received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage" is not the case if the contents themselves are still unacceptable. To actually quote WP:N, and it also says the same thing, and it also says WP:NOT is still our main policy thus WP: Wikipedia is not a webhost. In fact, the offered searches are showing the same exact mirrored articles, including from the same timed schedule, thus not even satisfying GNG, which says is unconvincing. Several claims of improvement were made before but none happened, so how can we know our policies will see them now? SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All news sources that cover company-related topics are not automatically "PR" as some sort of peculiar default. I get the impression that the nominator would simply like all company-related articles to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of source coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My evaluation of the sources is similar to User:Cbs527 and these sources are not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. I had a careful look at previous deletion discussion and the same concerns are expressed there. Despite the huge amount of sources, a careful scrutiny of even the new sources show that these are not useful.

"America’s Wind Energy Potential Triples in New Estimate". Wired. -Passing mention, and 1 quote by the CEO
"El viento impulsa a Meteosim". La Vanguardia. - Article mostly about Meteosim and that too it's the Vice President talking. A passing mention of AWS
"Unos físicos para prever el tiempo". El País. - Article entirely about Meteosim. Passing mention that a Metosim subsidiary merged with an AWS subidiary. Also largely quotes the vice president
"Simular la atmósfera de Brasil a 20 años vista 'sin pisar el país'". El Mundo. - Once again, article entirely about Meteosim. Passing mention that a Metosim subsidiary merged with an AWS subidiary. Also again quotes the vice president
It should be noted that the above 3 article are very similar and also in the section which usually publicises upcoming companies (and vulnerable to promotional content).
"Con el viento al Magreb". El Periódico de Catalunya. (in Spanish) – Based in Barcelona, Spain --Brief mention in context of news about wind energy in the Maghreb. The actual secondary content is minimum like less than 3 sentences and 1 sentence is again by a company employee. This is not the indepth coverage we require
"The art of building utility-scale wind farms". Cherokee Chronicle Times. – Based in Cherokee, Iowa 1 sentence passing mention (and the same sentence repeated under an image caption). Source is also local and the website is down
"Change in wind hurts future". Times Union. Brief coverage which entirely quotes the president of the company, also local source from there the company operates
"Wind energy company to model L.I. coast area". Times Union. Routine news about company, majority of the article quotes the president of the company, also local source from there the company operates
"AWS Truepower works to predict the future of wind to site turbines". Times Union. (subscription required) Unable to look at this one, but same local newspaper and the same journalist as the previous 2 sources
"Software acquisition broadens AWS Truepower analytical services". Albany Business Review. Routine aquisition news, again quotes the president. And we stopped using these local biz journals for notability. And
Wind Power For Dummies – Has content about the company's windNavigator service. Coverage about the product software is quite brief. Notability of the company cannot be inherited from it.
Windpower Monthly Newsmagazine (subscription required) – Has content about the company's windNavigator service. Doesn't seem like significant coverage. Trade magazines are problematic sources due to the close proximity to the industry and its natural tendency to put focus on a narrow area

A notable company would at least have a few indepth sources which provide secondary coverage about the company. This doesn't seem to happen here. What I see is passing mentions or tangential coverage or brief mention of acquisition or essentially someone linked to the company talking about it. There is also nothing in any of the major national newspapers which makes me wonder how much of an impact this had. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2017 (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. This discussion failed to produce any clear consensus on whether or not the sources provided establish notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Gorilla

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

Retro video game store not notable outside Seattle. Almost exclusively primary source or local coverage. All other mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (closest would be to create an article on Retrogaming in Seattle, if the sourcing warranted it, but we have no indication that it does). czar 21:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, seems somewhat self-promotional. South Nashua (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kohler, Chris (2008-08-31). "PAX: Okay, I Bought China Warrior". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Pink Godzilla is pretty fantastic, for what it’s worth. Their prices on classic Japanese games are pretty much what you’d expect to pay in Akihabara. They’re totally reasonable, the people are friendly, and their stock is absurdly deep.
2. Carson, Biz (2013-11-15). "Seattle's Epic Underground Scene and a Cool Pinball Museum". Wired. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  (5) Pink Gorilla The place to go for all your vintage gaming needs—anything from an Atari Asteroids cartridge for $2.99 to Little Samson, an original Nintendo release, for $550.
3. Siegel, Scott Jon (2007-02-08). "Off the Grid reviews Pink Godzilla Dev Kit". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  This game was clearly made for me. An analog game about developing digital games? It's like they were listening to my dreams.
  The "they" in this case is Pink Godzilla Games, a hip little video game store based in Seattle. Although their current claim to fame is a ping pong tournament against the Penny Arcade boys, they've also recently gotten into the analog game business. At PAX 2006, they debuted the beta version of the Pink Godzilla Dev Kit, a full-color card game designed by attorney(!) Christopher Rao. It's all about creating video games, and the creators have certainly done their homework when it comes to appealing to the gamer crowd. In-jokes and references abound in this strategy title about everyone's favorite fantasy job.
  ...
  Dev Kit's biggest flaw at the moment is its presentation of the rules, which can be fairly confusing to first-timers. The included manual is laid out in a somewhat illogical order, and the game's myriad of rules, instances, and special cards are presented in a dry, uninteresting manner.
4. Bennett, Colette (2007-12-19). "Rock out in Seattle at Pinkapalooza". Destructoid. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Discovering the Pink Godzilla store in Seattle during PAX almost resulted in an orgasmic version of my death. Being the game and toy obsessee that I am, the sheer selection of awesomeness they have avaliable put me in a state of paralysed bliss, which thankfully wore off after ten minutes or so. After recovering, I managed to buy some things and lick the Super Famicom selection a little.
  If you live in Seattle, there is an event hosted by Pink Godzilla tonight that you shouldn't miss. Pinkapalooza is a Rock Band themed charity event being hosted at the Nectar Lounge in Seattle's Fremont District tonight.
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources lists Destructoid as a reliable source.
5. Wong, Brad (2006-09-30). "Pretty Packed in Pink - A Tiny Video-Game Store Filled With Collectibles". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  In this spirit, Seattle businessmen Greg Hess and Nathan Paine hope that Pink Godzilla, their video-game store, will add another touch of bustling Asia to the city's retail scene.
  Just walk into their 280-square- foot store in the International District to find out.
  The two 30-year-olds have managed to cram in more than 5,600 unique items, including game cartridges, figurines, old-school consoles and their company-branded clothing.
6. 8bitjoystick (2009-06-14). "Pink Godzilla Games is changing their name". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  The article notes:
  
  I have some hard-hitting world exclusive videogame industry news to break right here right now on this blog. Seattle’s best retro and import games retailer Pink Godzilla Games is in the process of undergoing a re-branding.
  For the past several years I have greatly enjoyed buying import and retro games at their location in Seattle’s International District near Uwajimayas but in the back of my mind I was always a little worried that the lawyers from Godzilla would send them a strongly worded letter requesting that they changed the name of their business.
7. Machkovech, Sam (2009-10-02). "Out With Donkey Kong, In With Pink Gorilla". Seattle Metropolitan. Archived from the original on 2017-03-07. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Leaves one option, then: the International District’s Pink Gorilla. Make that two options—PG is about to open a second spot in the U. District.
  ...
  Since 2005, PG has sat quietly in a multi-shop complex in the ID, one block from Uwajimaya, where its obsessive staff stocks a dreamy selection of rare and Japanese video games. Sandwiched between a manga/anime toy shop and an Asian video store, PG caters nicely to its neighbors’ demographic, though English-speaking geeks have as much to enjoy, from toys and dolls to a cherry-picked selection of classic games. It’s a candyland. But at less than 300 square feet, it’s cozy.
  After years of trying, co-owners Nathan Paine and Greg Hess have finally landed their dream retail location: Right on the freakin’ Ave.
  ...
  The growing chain has also recently released its own collectible card game, built up a successful line of PG-branded merch, and sold gobs of games at events like Seattle’s own Penny Arcade Expo. Even a recent name change (once “Pink Godzilla,” ‘til lawyers came a-callin’) hasn’t disrupted business.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pink Gorilla to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know there was some work in putting together a list of sources but I'm not convinced that they meet the guidelines in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:RS and I don't believe they establish notability. Some are trivial mentions or inclusions in lists (such as 1. and 2.) I like 3. as it appears to be a good independent source but the article is mostly about the game developed by Pink Gorilla and not the company itself. I'd reject 4. as it would not meet the definition of a "reliable" source and a lot of content is user generated. 5. is an advertorial and is not independent as it extensively quotes Primary sources. 6. is a blog and is therefore also refected as a reliable source. And for me, 7. is an advertorial in a local publication. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Combining all of the sources together demonstrates notability. The third source is about what the company has produced, its Dev Kit, so it is about the company.
The fourth source from Destructoid is reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which says "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such." The author is Colette Bennett, a professional journalist. According to https://www.linkedin.com/in/bennettcolette, she was general manager of Destructoid, a freelance writer for CNN, a writer for HLN, and is a senior writer for The Daily Dot. Her article is not user-generated.
The fifth article contains plenty of non-quoted material.
The sixth source is from a columnist syndicated to SFGate (link) and Seattle Post-Intelligencer (link). From Technologizer:
A bit of qualification: I follow 8BitJoystick’s Jake Metcalf on Twitter and he seems like a responsible writer. More importantly, he has a track record of digging up credible inside sources. He famously broke the news that Halo developer Bungie was leaving Microsoft (it was actually amusing to see bigger outlets laugh at him, then eat their words), and has posted a couple other juicy reports as well.
So when Metcalf says the source was “well vetted,” I believe him, even if the source’s information leaves me skeptical simply because it’s so unbelievable.
The seventh source is a store review of the subject so it is standard for the author to describe his thoughts about what the store is like.
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources provided by Cunard have demonstrated notability. This are the types of sources and responses we seek from those seeking inclusion. Not all, but most sources pass our requirement for independent RS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are local, not meeting WP:AUD. An establishment of local notability; not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (magazine), Engadget, and Destructoid are definitely not local coverage, and have a consensus for being reliable, so that argument by itself doesn't really hold up... Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough... okay any... in-depth sources. The best source (and there's really only one, is a local source. The rest are simple blurbs or mere mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see numerous sources in a cursory search. Coupled with those presented above, it seems to meet GNG.104.163.144.60 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: many stores will have local news cover but I don't think it has enough relevance to merit inclusion Porphyro (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archport Laboratories

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. All the sources I could find are either WP:ROUTINE coverage or are not from independent sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine WP:CORPSPAM, I wish we could nuke such WP:YELLOWPAGES on sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pure WP:CORPSPAM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 16 March 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MobiKwik

AfDs for this article:

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

Clear advertising, not only because we've established these publications largely, knowingly and otherwise obviously republish company advertising, but because there's consistency in all of them: For example: 1 is their own website -- 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 is a trade publication -- *3 is a trade publication, focusing with their life story -- 7, 11 and 12 is a local newspaper, but is an announcement, so is 8 -- 9 is a known PR republisher, only announcing the company's own finance plans -- 13 is a local PR award. Now, for the later added sources, they are: 1 is a finance announcement, 2 is also similar, but worse, because it's a clearly labeled "Company plans and their own words about it", same with 5 whereas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all follow. None of it satisfies our simplest policies, WP:NOT and the closely followed WP:CORPDEPTH, because the standards state: [Unacceptable sources are] brief announcements, simple statements, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, passing mentions, press releases, any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, any material by them, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by or other. Our policies clearly state there's no negotiating in advertising since it has no place here, wherever it was republished. A simple searchhere clearly shows the criteria fitting, since all of them are either clearly labeled announcements or thinly hidden signs of it. The history also shows clear signs of likely employees or hired help, because they all share in the focused consistency, so policy WP:PAID applies. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is hard to imagine circumstances under which any ten person company has achieved notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This one certainly hasn't. - Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is a difficult borderline case, and I agree with some of the nomination's concerns about the article and the quality of its sources. Most of the sources present a biased picture with an overwhelming focus on perceived accomplishments and growth (unfortunately that style is all too common in articles about startups and "entrepeneurs"). But several of them (especially in "Further reading") also include additional commentary from the authors themselves and factual information. The allegation that all added entries in "Further reading" are press releases, advertising or republished information, has no clear evidence to back it up. Also, neither the size of a company (it has more than 10 employees by the way - the source is misrepresented and only covers the "core team"), nor previous COI edits (most of them have been cleaned up anyway) are valid reasons for article deletion. Lastly, critical coverage in Mint shows some public interest: this is clearly not your average backyard startup. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleaned up the article, removed the advertising, and added more sources, including recent news that's getting coverage. This one easily passed Afd just a few months ago - what changed? Timtempleton (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete After the clean up,the status of the company seems clearer: not yet notable. The evidence for this is that the references are still almost entirely notices about raising funds, or obtaining permits. The best source is the April 2015 Forbes article, which says specifically it is not yet significant. Of course, that was 2 years ago and it might have become s=more substantial, but there's no equal quality source to that effect, and the company is still trying to raise small amounts of money. This raises the question: if there are RSs that say a company is not notable in its sphere of influence, does that make it notable by WP standards. A literal reading of the GNG would imply that it does; I consider that a paradox which has to be resolved by reading sources, not just counting them. But this is WP, and lack of logic is sometimes no barrier to consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third most popular mobile wallet in India.[31] 50 million users according to other source in article. We'd be hard pressed to find a company with 50 million users in the US that isn't on Wikipedia already. Timtempleton (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Additional sources are also listed. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - Every single there is either a paid press or a clear republished business announcement, not only because of the mirrored consistency but take such blatant quotes as "The company's journey and its path ahead and what it says" that violates WP:GANG because it says we need independent coverage not based from primary sources. All others are clear in their influences such as "The company's finances and actions", "MobiKeio announced it is....And what the spokesman said", "The company's finances transactions", "MobiKwik wants to....and its words about it"; the policy that overtakes GNG is WP:What Wikipedia is not because of the clearly stated label "Users must not advertise or promote" and there are 2 sections about it, and fittingly for such an advertised "business profile" as "The company's path and ahead" and especially when the last link actually states the article is part of their PR section complete with the words "a starting company" thus not satisfying GNG. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the page survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; the content is still company claims and aspirations, partnerships, product launches, and minor industry awards. WP:TOOSOON -- no encyclopedic relevance just yet. This content might just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a review of sources, I can find at least two that appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability and a number of others that are on the margins. For example, the second Mint article and the ZDNet article posted by North America above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single of the sources are either the company's employees talking about themselves or routine coverage. Some of the sources are also not exactly reliable sources.

the ZDNet article is a contributor blog.
The coverage in Economic Times/Times of India [32], [33], [34] are all in the small biz section which is focused on upcoming startups (and it vulnerable to promo). A quick look at the articles show that it mostly consists of the founders talking.
Business standard This is a routine redressed press release about a product launch announcement.
2 articles in the Mint are both of the type "Mobikwik, a mobile wallet company, has announced that it ...". The third one [35] is a tabloidy coverage of a blog dispute

The company is an up and coming company, but not yet notable. The coverage in reliable sources is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH at this moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Architects

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

PROD was removed - was prodded as "Self-authored article, no citations to external websites." Mifter (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alexander Brown Wilson. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Article has no external sources and until recently was more-or-less just a self-authored list of regional awards. 08:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solid keep and expand. I suggest there is more than enough NEXISTS to support the article and expand it with IRSS. Some for example seem to be:

There also specific mentions in further sources about their projects rather than the firm itself.

Also importantly google: "Wilson Architects" site:www.couriermail.com.au gives some further strong IRSS. Aoziwe (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many historical references for example amongst trove Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

many of the trove results are not about this firm but other architects with same name. Also the sites you post above are mainly architecture industry so not entirely third party. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I think you will find that all of the AB and RM Wilson ones are the relevant ones. Yes above, some but not all. I do believe there is sufficient specific and overall NEXIST to keep this article. Aoziwe (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: there were many citations independent of the topic in the article before large amounts of it was deleted and then PRODed. Judge it by the citations that were in the article (e.g. this version, which has masses of citations not closely associated with the firm) not just what is left. It is a well-known architectural firm which wins many awards. I would expect well-known architects to appear in architecture industry publications, especially when they win so many awards. It would be a worrying sign if their industry publications didn't mention them. Kerry (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

try this google search if you want a mainstream newspaper (not an architectural publication) Kerry (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to assume good faith when an article with over 40 citations was stripped down to just two citations both of which came from the firm's website and then proposed for deletion on the grounds of having no citations to external websites. Kerry (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I can assure I have no stake in the article however it is worth noting that in the last rev ([36]) prior to the cleanup the article reads very much like an advertisement or PR piece. The citations were all to misc awards and the article was primarily written by users who have minor or no edits outside the article. I nominated the article after its PROD was removed (it was PROD tagged by another editor) as I myself am not sure it is notable enough for its own article and it was almost completely written by individuals who in my estimation either have a serious COI or are directly tied to the company. I personally think it would be worth merging to the founders article but I will leave it to the closing admin to decide. That being said I am always happy to be proven wrong if you are able to improve the article directly. Mifter (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that the article was not a good one being mostly a long list of awards, but the question at AfD is not about the quality of the article but about notability of the topic. Removing all independent citations of awards in your revision also removed the evidence of notability. Although the contributors you mention are not known to me personally, I do know that there have been edit-a-thons about architecture held here in Australia and there is at least one Australian university that appears to do a class activity each year contributing to Wikipedia on Australian architecture topics, which might explain the contribution pattern. These tend to come up on my watchlist/notifications because I write about Queensland heritage architecture. Kerry (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that AfD is for notability and not quality (though I do not believe article quality and notability are mutually exclusive in all cases). As I mentioned above I personally am on the fence about this article's notability and as another editor PRODed it I viewed that as validating my concern enough that I believed a forum such as this would be appropriate for a larger discussion. It is great to hear about edit-a-thon's on this topic and while I don't know how much of a role that they did or did not play in this article it is certainly possible that they did (from what limited reading I've done on Queensland it sounds like a fascinating place) though with edit-a-thon's the new editors may not be overly familiar with our notability policies. Mifter Public (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed re newbies and notability. Kerry (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a particularly good example of in depth reliable coverage is: Chris Herde, Family of architects have designed some of Brisbane’s landmarks. The Courier-Mail, July 24, 2014. I think the article meets GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Strong Keep (How's that for specific?) When the search tool terms are refined 'Wilson architects Australia,' numerous reliable source refs appear. However, the article only uses 'in house' references, and was probably written by someone in house not familiar with Wikipedia concepts and formats. They ought to task someone in house to learn about Wikipedia and write the article. I have no objection to in house, if it's done right. The best article I've ever seen that looked as though it was written in house is Cael Sanderson, a prominent American wrestler and, now, coach. My guess is that someone told the Penn State publicity department to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia before writing or modifying the article. This article isn't promotional in tone, so if they continue that approach and add appropriate refs, it would be a more than decent article. Tapered (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Just removed one peacock world from Cael Sanderson. No one's perfect. Tapered (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Solid Communications

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

Non notable and considerably promotional. This is a local publicity organization limited to Las Vegas with local references only. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unabashedly promotional text is a content issue that can be fixed. Most coverage is WP:LOCAL but a long profile in Working Mother magazine is undoubtedly "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" and therefore this passes WP:GNG.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing is thin, and I couldn't find additional sources in a quick search - but the interview with Working Mother, a national magazine, goes a long way toward establishing notability. I don't find the article to be unacceptably promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2017 (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) J 947 04:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joypurhat Sugar Mill's Limited

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

Dearth of sources. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have a storied history and impact on the local economy: Gbooks and News, sample article. More sources probably exist. Note: the article names appears to be a misspelling; should be ""Joypurhat Sugar Mill". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:--What you provide are trivial non-notable mentions.In time of the 1971 war, war-camps were extensively set up every area or so by the administration.Do you mean that makes every one of them notable.The books are mainly trade/industry/labor directories and mentions almost all industries in Bangladesh.How does that establish notability?Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-. Founded in 1963 it is the largest Sugar mill in the country. Has coverage in news articles and books.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Where does it say it is the largest Sugar mill in the country. I searched but wasn't able to find it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, this says "...wastes from Joypurhat Sugar Mills, the largest of the kind in the country." Sorry, my bad. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: You are correct that it may not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. At least I wasn't able to find the indepth coverage required in English. However, this may pass WP:GEOFEAT due to historical/cultural significance. Is the war event significant enough? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:--There's little doubt about the significance of the war.It was the war of independence for Bangladesh and was a defining point im it's history.But what I am saying is that during the war almost every school,somewhat big factories ,large grounds etc.were utilised to set up war-camps by the administration.And,as I said above I fail to find anything special in this to warrant an article.As a side note and as a person who personally knows something about the topic, I think the best way-out to salvage the article will be through sourcing acc. to WP:CORPDEPTH.Winged Blades^Godric 11:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for the explanation. Yes, the war seems to be significant but it is not clear how significant the war camp was. One claim of significance could be the fact that it is the largest sugar mill. I am on the fence about this. On one hard I cannot find enough sources (to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH) in English, though there is clearly a good start. On the other hand, the sources that we have give me a good reason to believe that there might be plausible coverage in maybe Bengali language sources. How about a merge to Joypurhat_District#Economy? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:--I will take that.

Yeah,I scanned across bengali sources but same as in Eng. sources--borderline WP:CORPDEPTH coverage.Ample proof that it exists but nothing about it's uniquiety!Winged Blades^Godric 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reliable sources cited and those included as further reading amply meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:--In light of the argument I put above,how does this pass WP:GNG? Winged Blades^Godric 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: There was a dearth of sources in the article when you nominated it. Those identified by K.e.coffman probably bolster the case for keep, but I don't argue on the basis of Google Books snippet views because it is difficult to reliably assess the significance of coverage from snippets. It would be worth consulting full copies of some of them.

Your argument against notability seems unduly focused on the use of the mill's 135-acre site as a Pakistan Army war-camp in 1971, which was just one year in the mill's 57-year-and-counting history, and the subject of only 7 of the 40 sources. I don't think anyone is saying the mill is notable only for being an army camp, or that every army camp is notable (although in my experience every military camp in the UK and US has an article, even if it was active for only a year). The 7 sources cover the war-camp at the mill because it was the location of the confinement, torture, and killing of civilians, actions later tried as crimes against humanity. Three sentences about the war crimes seems appropriate in the history of the mill.

You said the sources you found were borderline WP:CORPDEPTH, but didn't name those sources. That is an element of WP:CORP, not WP:GNG, but in my evaluation, the article's 33 sources that cover the non-war years plainly pass the depth of coverage test. None are trivial routine coverage of the types explicitly excluded under that criterion. At the moment the article is a very brief, incomplete stub, but the sources give the topic a level of attention that makes it possible to write much more than that.

As to the mill's "uniquiety", it is the largest in the country, employing, housing, and serving thousands. In a place where 70% of the population is employed in agriculture, a sugar mill is as important as a coal mine or steel plant would be in an industrialized country. Bangladesh's three news agencies, foremost English-language newspaper, and English-language financial press cover the mill at least a couple times a year. Any apparent unevenness in their coverage is, I think, merely an artifact of which years of which media outlets are readily accessible to me online. I only scratched the surface of the Bengali-language material out there. Suffice it to say, in Bangladesh the mill is a BFD, and not in the sarcastic sense.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the largest sugar mill in a country where agriculture is the main industry is strongly suggestive of notability. We would probably not delete an article on the "largest automaker" in an industrialised country. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2017 (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. slakr^\ talk / 07:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material Sciences Corporation

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

no evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with both the previous WP:PROD rationales. This is a poorly-sourced article on a company which was previously public but was acquired in early 2014 [37]. There is mention of the name in subsequent ongoing consolidations ([38] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a former publicly traded company, which gives it permanent notability. Even if it had since gone out of business, it would deserve a page. The article should notice the privatization and consolidations. Those are encyclopedic changes. There is clearly encyclopedic content on this subject with WP:RS to support that fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [39], [40], [41]. As per these sources, company was listed on NYSE as MSC, now listed on NASDAQ as MASC. As per WP:NOIMPROVEMENT,
"...articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles...See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
(See § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), above, for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.)"
Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are simply not enough sources available to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply being listed on a stock exchange does not lead to automatic notability. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources, we should not have an article on it (See WP:WHYN). Also arguments of the type WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are not useful if proof cannot be shown. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two. Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.
WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason. It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article. The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
The burden of proof to show sources lies on the people who are arguing that the article should be kept. So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
"Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.

There aren't enough reliable sources for this article. I stick to my delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research. Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim. Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete I can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings. The references provided aren't independent and/or significant discussions.Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Write-up and sources at International Directory of Company Histories convinces me there is notability here.Glendoremus (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I normally wouldn't do this and make my own arguments but I couldn't have put it any better than User:Unscintillating - Pmedema (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and AllyD. Sources do not show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and the in-depth coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources, passes WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The available sources do not demonstrate that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, and I've been unable to find anything better. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation. Keep The sources found by Cunard below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I found below? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triptothecottage (talk · contribs), thank you for the kind words and for evaluating the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nelson, Brett (2003-01-24). "Shhh! Struggling Material Sciences is betting its future on a dated feat of metallurgy called "quiet" steel. Your Ford pickup may have it". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues.
  ...
  Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals.
  ...
  As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”
2. Nelson, Brett (2000-10-30). "So What's Your Story?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest
3. Englander, David (2013-04-03). "Primed for "Material" Gains". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors.
  Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances.
  In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks.
  ...
  Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford.
  ...
  It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position.
4. Dinger, Ed (2004). "Material Sciences Corporation". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 64. Detroit, Michigan: St. James Press. ISBN 1558625666. Archived from the original on 2017-03-22. Retrieved 2017-03-22 – via Encyclopedia.com.
  From Cengage.com:
  When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.
  The book notes:
  Public Company
  Incorporated: 1971
  Employees: 740
  Sales: $266.8 million (2003)
  Stock Exchanges: New York
  Ticker Symbol: MSC
  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
  
  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets.
  
  Founding the Company in 1971
  
  MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ...
  The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.
5. International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation:
  Arndorfer, James B., "Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms," Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3.
  Keefe, Lisa M., "Metal Firm Is Up for Sale," Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70.
  Murphy, H. Lee, "Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal," Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36.
  Nelson, Brett, "Shhh!," Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84.
  Savitz, Eric J., "A Fresh Shine," Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14.
  Setton, Dolly, "Steel Deal," Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190.
  Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., "Tripod for Growth," Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33.
6. Hoover's has an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes:
  Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US.
  Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail.
  Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales, That win helped land a contract for the same part, Material Sciences has spent $1 million, Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces, MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets., . The company's products are used, they most of their sales in US. Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 23 March 2017 (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. Opinions are divided, but a renomination now that the article is less overtly promotional is conceivable. Sandstein 09:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigfox

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

Part of a promotional campaign for the company and its executives. If the article is read careful, the figures it gives suggesting importance are actually projections to 2020, The extent of the article is mainly obtained by saying things several times over, e.g. "arrival in Denmark. ...thus joins the list of countries including ..... " Almost everything given is planning or preliminary stages. I'm reluctant to support deletion of an article with extensive references,but the references as would be expected are mostly PR or notices or speculation about plans. It has announced a great many partnerships, and there are at least 2 press releases cited for each of them. Several companies have purchased the product. It lists them all, with 2 or 3 or 4 press releases for each of them. Any number of such references does not add up to notability -- it just documents an extensive PR campaign. The article was written by one of our more extensive undeclared paid editors, before they got blocked. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree with above reasoning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this advertorially toned content belongs on the company web cite, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes notability as far as I can tell, and with all the promotional noise pruned from it, it can still certainly make for an informative article yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. There is some inappropriate advertising blurb, but the core content is useful and appropriate. Brightondub (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer the account Brightondub above has recorded 3 edits, the last ones prior to the !vote above occurred in 2009. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin that this account has no other recent edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unquestionably advertised and, including recent improvements, there's been no guaranteed signs of actual convincing, thus delete by that alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of WP:RS on the subject, such as [42]. Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inclusion of the book reference above swings it for me but the article needs a lot of pruning. I'll give it a first pass to remove the obvious forward-looking statements and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed significant portions of the article including all of the PR references and forward-looking statements and PR-announced business deals and I've added 3 references (including the one mentioned above) that all pass WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Kudos to User:HighKing for the large cleanup of the promotional content in the article. My concern is the remaining references seem to rely too much on trade publications and press releases to qualify for WP:CORP. The above referenced book source, although a little more comprehensive than some of the other sources, is none the less a trade publication from the proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information and Software Technologies. After reviewing the sources both in en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia (nothing helpful, all press releases) and eliminating the press releases the remainder of the sources don't appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I was unable to find more significant coverage in G-Searches, HighBeam or NYTimes mostly PR or trade publications. CBS527^Talk 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbs527: Not sure if you saw I also added two other book references. Links in my comment below. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note, that I also added two more book references. https://books.google.com/books?id=_BzfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA241 and https://books.google.com/books?id=cLI0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA56 and I believe these have not been considered by the Delete !votes above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 4 March 2017 (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.